Understanding the Rule of Completeness in Michigan Courts: MRE 106
In the pursuit of truth and ensuring fairness during legal proceedings, the Michigan Rules of Evidence (MRE) play a crucial role.
One particular rule, MRE 106 (Completeness), safeguards against misleading interpretations and fosters a more comprehensive understanding of presented evidence.
What is the Rule of Completeness?
MRE 106 states: “If a party introduces part of a writing or recorded statement, any other party may introduce the remainder, or so much thereof as is relevant to the portion introduced, if the remainder or portion thereof offered completes the statement or renders it more understandable.”
In simpler terms, when a portion of a written or recorded statement is presented in court, the opposing party has the right to introduce the remaining relevant parts of the statement.
This ensures that the jury or judge hears the full context and avoids being swayed by a potentially misleading snippet of evidence.
Why is the Rule of Completeness Important?
Imagine a scenario where the prosecution presents a written excerpt from a witness’s statement, highlighting a specific sentence that seemingly incriminates the defendant. Without the complete statement, the jury might be left with an incomplete picture, potentially overlooking crucial contextual details or even contradictory information that could exonerate the defendant.
MRE 106 prevents such scenarios by allowing the defense to introduce the remaining relevant parts of the statement. This ensures that:
- The jury has access to a more complete picture and can make a well-informed decision based on all relevant information.
- Misleading interpretations are minimized as the opposing party can present the full context of the statement.
- Fairness is upheld by allowing both sides to present a complete picture of their case.
It’s important to note:
- The opposing party can only introduce relevant portions of the statement, not everything. The court will determine what constitutes relevant information based on the specific case and the previously introduced portion.
- MRE 106 only applies to written or recorded statements, not oral statements.
Conclusion
MRE 106 plays a vital role in ensuring fairness and promoting a complete understanding of evidence in Michigan courts. By allowing the introduction of relevant, contextual information, the rule helps prevent misleading interpretations and fosters a more just legal process.
Related Articles
No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
More Posts
Defense attorneys seek fed inquiry of MSP crime labs
Southfield — Three defense attorneys are asking the federal government to investigate the Michigan State Police crime laboratories, alleging misconduct in their testing for pending drug cases. Southfield defense attorneys Neil Rockind and Michael Komorn, along...
MI Cops Change Policy So They Can Falsely Imprison Legal Pot Smokers
In 2008, an overwhelming majority of Michigan voters approved legislation to legalize marijuana for medical use in the state. With nearly 50,000 Michigan residents arrested and incarcerated each year for controlled substance violations, the state’s prison industrial...
Attorney Alleges Authorities `Bend The Science’ To Elevate Marijuana Cases
MIRS-Michigan Independent Source Of News and Information Friday Nov 6, 2015 Maxwell LORINCZ, of Spring Lake, says a fingerprint of oil on an empty plastic container led to his arrest on a drug charge on Sept. 24, 2014. Now, a year later, the case that might have...
Drug felonies without credible proof? — Allegations of politicking in state police crime labs
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. – First on FOX 17, we broke serious allegations that state police crime labs are being told to falsely report marijuana test results. This is resulting in misleading lab reports that an attorney claims creates felonies without real proof. ...
Attorney: Crime labs ‘falsified’ marijuana reports
A Southfield lawyer alleges the Michigan State Police crime labs have “falsified lab reports on marijuana statewide” and he’s asking a judge to dismisses charges lodged against a client. Michael Komorn, who also represents defendants in Livingston County, said...
Hearing in alleged false crime lab marijuana reporting dropped this week
OTTAWA COUNTY, Mich. – The evidentiary hearing originally set for Nov. 5 has been dropped in the case involving a medical marijuana patient charged with a disputed felony for synthetic THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. The Ottawa County Assistant...
“A non-stop political game:” Former MSP Forensic Science director on false marijuana reporting …
DEWITT, Mich. – A former director of Michigan State Police Forensic Science addressed the serious allegations FOX 17 uncovered, which accuse the Attorney General’s office and state prosecutors of influencing state police crime labs to falsely report marijuana;...
Michigan’s medical marijuana law circumvented by crime labs’ THC reports, attorney charges
Posted on MLive 10/30/15 OTTAWA COUNTY, MI – An attorney claims prosecutors pressured state police crime labs to change the way THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is reported in an effort to circumvent Michigan's medical marijuana law. Michael...
Medical-Marijuana Patient Alleges Prosecutors Swayed Crime Lab Drug Tests
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 4:11pm A Michigan medical-marijuana patient claims in court papers that state police crime labs are bending to pressure from prosecutors in analyzing marijuana samples, leading to harsher punishments. Maxwell Lorincz, 35, was originally...
Allegations: MSP falsely reporting marijuana, targeting card-carrying patients
SPRING LAKE, Mich. – The defense representing a Spring Lake father facing a felony marijuana charge is accusing Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division crime labs of misreporting marijuana intentionally. It’s an allegation with statewide implications. ...