First, the rule of completeness, like its common law predecessor, is more than just an obscure procedural rule that governs the timing of the introduction of writings and documents. It is related to the real purpose of the opposite system, which allows the parties to hit hard but not unfairly. The opposite system finds its most important application in the negotiation of criminal proceedings. The government has almost unlimited resources to investigate and lay charges. This power is accompanied by the obligation to prove the allegations beyond any doubt. We are trying to get the sentencing that the government bears the full burden of proof. The accused is presumed innocent and does not have to prove or even testify. We urge the jury not to draw adverse conclusions if an accused decides not to testify in his or her case. We also appreciate the right of the accused not to be compelled to incriminate himself and to take precautions to avoid the deterrent effect that accompanies any comment before the jury that suggests that he should take note of the fact that he chose not to testify. If a prosecutor presents an incomplete version of the accused`s written or oral statement to investigators by referring only to the incriminating parties, while omitting the exculpatory parties that would paint a more complete picture and dispel a misleading impression that the jury may have heard only the incomplete parts, then the accused is at a serious disadvantage. If he is unable to present the parts of his testimony that the government omitted while the incomplete version is presented to the jury (or rather very soon after in cross-examination or even later in his own trial) because the court decides that the omitted parts are inadmissible hearsay or (if it was an oral statement), that Rule 106 is not applicable to oral submissions, so it has only two options: (1) leave the misleading version uncontested; or (2) waive their rights against self-incrimination and testify – but only after the government has closed their case. This is a high price to pay for correcting misleading information.
If, as required by the wording of the rule, it is accepted that Rule 106 can only be invoked to correct an unfair presentation of incomplete information, then the interpretation of Rule 106 endorses the way in which many courts have abused the opposite system that the common law rule was intended to prevent. For this reason, it has been held in the most reasoned cases that evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible may be adduced if this is necessary to remedy an unfairly incomplete reproduction of a written, recorded or oral statement. When the state questioned Ms. Wilson about her conversation with Conyers shortly after his incarceration, Ms. Wilson and the accused only discussed the fact that he had two guns, not where they were. 345 m. to 544. Although the defendant may have had the right to question Ms. Wilson on other parts of the same conversation Under the doctrine of verbal completeness, the testimony the defendant sought took place during another conversation between him and Ms. Wilson. In accordance with Rule 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, if an incomplete written or recorded statement is made by a party to a proceeding, the opposing party may request the introduction of other parties or other written or registered statements that, for the sake of fairness, should be considered concurrent with the written or registered statement originally submitted. This doctrine of completeness is intended to ensure that the jury considers the incomplete statement in its full context.
A party wishing to submit a related or remaining part of a copy or record must make the request at the same time as the evidence. See G.S. 8C-106 (“. can ask him at that time to introduce himself… »). The reason the offering party must submit the rest of the letter or file “at that time” is due to “insufficient repair work if it is delayed to a later stage of the process.” G.S. 8C-106, Official Commentary. See Staat v. Lloyd, 354 N.C. 76 (2001) (another part of the respondent`s police testimony was not admissible under the principle of completeness if the defendant did not introduce the excluded part at the same time, as required by the rule, but instead attempted to introduce it when it was rebutted). Justice Grimm provided a historical analysis of the common law principle of evidence known as the “doctrine of completeness,” noting that it was partially codified as the Fed.