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
The US Supreme Court and Federal Gun Law Cases
The US Supreme Court and Federal Gun Law CasesChallenges to Federal Gun Laws the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed Updated July 8, 2024 Ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the...
Do Passengers in a Vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights?
Do Passengers have 4th Amendment Rights?Michigan Supreme Court Limits Police Ability to Search Passenger Property in CarsBackground Mead was a passenger in a car and had just met the driver, who offered him a ride. When the police stopped the vehicle and ordered both...
Do Students Have 4th Amendment Rights in Schools
Students and 4th Amendment RightsStudents are entitled to a right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures even within school premises, as ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States. However, these rights are somewhat limited for students, allowing...
Forfeiture Law: SCOTUS and Sixth Circuit Issue Landmark Rulings
Forfeiture Law in Focus: SCOTUS and Sixth Circuit Issue Landmark RulingsThe landscape of forfeiture law has been significantly shaped by recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. These rulings, in the cases of United States v...
Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests
Facial RecognitionHow Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use raises critical questions about civil liberties and accuracy. One landmark case sheds light on the...
People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights
Court of Appeals of Michigan PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 368736 Decided: June 27, 2024Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ. Introduction In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan...
MI Lawyer Weekly – Michigan’s Go To Lawyers for Cannabis Law
Please join us in congratulating our inaugural Michigan’s Go To Lawyer for cannabis law. Michael Komorn, Komorn Law, Farmington HillsMichigan Lawyers Weekly is pleased to announce the inaugural “Go To Lawyers” for cannabis law. Now in its fifth year, the “Go To...
Chinese-funded marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.
Inside the Chinese-funded and staffed marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.During a farm inspection, New Mexico state special agents discovered an excessive number of cannabis plants in violation of state laws. Subsequent visits revealed dozens of underfed and...
AGs – Ex DEA Leaders for Push Public Hearing On Marijuana Rescheduling
State AGs And Former DEA Leaders Push Agency To Hold Public Hearing On Marijuana Rescheduling ProposalIn a filing with the federal government ahead of a key deadline this week, a group of former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) leaders is asking the agency to...
I got a DUI while driving my dad’s boat – Will they take it?
I was out driving my dad's boat on the lake and I got caught drinking. Can they take the boat away from my dad who was not with me?Happy Father's Day - DadNo, in most cases, they likely won't take your dad's boat away for you getting a DUI while driving it. They Could...