Understanding the Rule of Completeness in Michigan Courts

KOMORN LAW

STATE and FEDERAL
Aggressive Legal Defense
All Criminal Allegations / DUI / Drugs
Since 1993

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.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

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.

DUI for Alcohol or Marijuana or Prescription Drugs - Fight it

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

Alcohol, Drugs, Kayaking – It could be a problem

Alcohol, Drugs, Kayaking – It could be a problem

Can I drink alcohol and smoke cannabis if I'm canoeing or kayaking or tubing or paddleboarding or just floating around?While Michigan law doesn't explicitly forbid consuming alcohol on non-motorized vessels like canoes or kayaks, it's strongly discouraged for safety...

read more
The Legal Significance of Marijuana Reclassification

The Legal Significance of Marijuana Reclassification

The Impact of Marijuana Reclassification on Legal LandscapeOn May 6, 2024, the DEA made a groundbreaking decision, accepting the US Department of Health and Human Services' recommendation to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III controlled substance....

read more
People v Williams Michigan COA – Police CPL Check

People v Williams Michigan COA – Police CPL Check

People v WilliamsMichigan Court of AppealsNo 365299 (04/18/24) MCL 28.425f permits a police officer to ask a person observed to be carrying a concealed weapon to produce their concealed pistol license (CPL) at any time and for any reason. Makes possession of a...

read more
Michael Komorn-Criminal Defense Attorney

About Your Attorney

Attorney Michael Komorn

Categories

Other Topics

Driving Under the Influence

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Michigan

Your Rights

Michigan Court of Appeals

Law Firm VIctories

Share This