MBE Rules · Evidence
Completeness and Oral Statements
Completeness — oral statements
The rule
FRE 106 covers writings and recordings; fairness-based completeness for oral conversations is handled through FRE 611 and cross-examination in federal court.
In plain English
The rule of completeness ensures that when a party introduces part of a written or recorded statement, the opposing party can introduce the rest of that statement to provide context. For oral statements, fairness is maintained through cross-examination under FRE 611, allowing the full conversation to be explored during questioning.
Worked example
During a trial, a witness testifies about a portion of a conversation they had with the defendant, implying guilt. The defense attorney cross-examines the witness and introduces the rest of the conversation, which shows the defendant was actually innocent. The jury is then influenced by the complete context, leading to a not guilty verdict.
Memory hook
Don't let half the story win; bring in the whole conversation!
The trap
Exams may present scenarios where students forget that oral statements require a different approach than written ones, leading to incomplete arguments. Students might also overlook the importance of cross-examination in revealing the full context.
How examiners test it
Questions often involve a witness testifying about only part of a conversation, prompting students to analyze whether the opposing party can introduce additional context through cross-examination or other means.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.