Article Title
Two Rules of Completeness
Abstract
The evidentiary rule of completeness is a common law and statutory rule of fairness that prevents one party from creating a distorted picture out of partial evidence at trial.1 But more difficult is the question of the rule’s scope, the question of how closely connected the completeness evidence must be to be admissible. It could be that the rule makes admissible any relevant statement that gives context to the jury, or it could be that the rule admits only so much of the second statement as necessary to clarify the first. Two common law schools of thought regarding the scope of the rule of completeness—one broader, the other narrower—persist in U.S. jurisprudence, though the distinction has been rarely discussed in scholarship.5 This Note argues that state courts should adopt the broad standard, which is increasingly accepted in federal courts, consistent with principles of fairness in other rules of evidence, necessary for the practice of judicial discretion, and required for the preservation of judicial candor.6 This is the right moment to reconsider the broad standard of completeness, now that FRE 106 has been liberalized by a 2023 amendment—with at least two state courts following suit––and after the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to narrow the application of FRE 106 against criminal defendants in Hemphill v. New York. 7 Part II of this Note traces the common law history of the rule of completeness and the different applications of the two standards for completeness. Part III discusses the minority of jurisdictions that have adopted the broad standard. Then Part IV analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent treatment of the rule, analogous federal rules of evidence, and the need for judicial candor in the pursuit of judicial legitimacy to find that the broad standard is now welcome in the federal system. If a prosecutor admits one part of a defendant’s confession, “The murder weapon was mine,” the rule of completeness permits the admission of the second, “but I had sold it months earlier.”2 The version of the rule of completeness codified in Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 106 states: If a party introduces all or part of a statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part—or any other statement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time. The adverse party may do so over a hearsay objection.3 Thus, the rule of completeness is a powerful rule of inclusion that, while still subject to some rules of exclusion, can trump a hearsay objection.