U.S. v. Rodriguez, 56 M.J. 336

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Expert / Scientific Testimony

1. a party-opponent may test the basis of an expert’s opinion by inquiring into the facts and data underlying that opinion

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Rule of Completeness

1. the rule of completeness, which has its roots in common law principles of evidence, has two purposes: (1) to ensure that the court not be misled because portions of a statement are taken out of context, and (2) to avoid the danger that an out-of-context statement may create such prejudice that it is impossible to repair by a subsequent presentation of additional material
2. under the Military Rules of Evidence adopted in 1980, there are two distinct rules of completeness: Rule 106, the general rule of completeness, and Rule 304(h)(2), which applies when a confession or admission is introduced against an accused
3. Rule 106 may be invoked by either the prosecution or defense to address matter introduced by the opposing party; the primary concern of Rule 106 is the order of proof, permitting an adverse party to compel the introduction of favorable evidence during the opponent’s case
4. Rule 106 applies only to evidence that ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with the proponent’s evidence, and does not necessarily require that the entire document be admitted into evidence; however, when a misleading impression might be created by introducing a document without accompanying documents or related correspondence, Rule 106 requires consideration as to whether the situation is one in which the proponent should be compelled to offer into evidence the entire correspondence or all accompanying documents that ought to be considered contemporaneously with the writing being introduced into evidence
5. Rule 304(h)(2): (1) applies to oral as well as written statements; (2) governs the timing under which applicable evidence may be introduced by the defense; (3) permits the defense to introduce the remainder of a statement to the extent that the remaining matter is part of the confession or admission or otherwise is explanatory of or in any way relevant to the confession or admission, even if such remaining portions would otherwise constitute inadmissible hearsay; and (4) requires a case-by-case determination as to whether a series of statements should be treated as part of the original confession or admission or as a separate transaction or course of action for purposes of the rule
6. appellant’s subsequent statements, which he sought to introduce at trial under the rule of completeness, were made at a different time, at a different place, and to a different set of persons; although the latter statements may rebut, explain, or modify the content of his earlier statements, they are not admissible under the rule of completeness because they were not part of the same transaction or course of action
7. the rule of completeness is an evidentiary rule designed to promote fairness by precluding unfair omissions, not a rule intended to allow an accused to avoid the crucible of cross-examination
8. the rule of completeness under Rule 304(h)(2) is a tool that is available to the defense if the defense chooses to use it; however, in the absence of a defense request, the military judge was not called upon to decide whether the rule of completeness applied after references to appellant's confessions were elicited by the defense during cross-examination, and, if so, which statements by appellant were covered by the rule of completeness
9. there are four major differences between Mil.R.Evid. 106 and Mil.R.Evid. 304(h)(2): (1) the general rule of completeness in Mil.R.Evid. 106 may be used by any party, but Mil.R.Evid. 304(h)(2) may be invoked only by an accused, and only after the prosecution has introduced an alleged admission or confession; (2) Mil.R.Evid. 106 applies only to documents and recordings, while Mil.R.Evid. 304(h)(2) also covers oral statements; (3) Mil.R.Evid. 106 is primarily concerned with timing, permitting a party to compel an opponent to introduce matter during the opponent’s case-in-chief, while Mil.R.Evid. 304(h)(2) is primarily concerned with authorizing the introduction of the substance of the remaining portions of the statement at issue; and (4) Mil.R.Evid. 106 provides the military judge with discretion to determine whether the additional material ought in fairness be considered with the original matter, whereas Mil.R.Evid. 304(h)(2) requires admission of the remaining portions of the statement if such material falls within the criteria set forth under the rule and applicable case law

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Witnesses: Experts

1. a party-opponent may test the basis of an expert’s opinion by inquiring into the facts and data underlying that opinion

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. we review a military judge’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion