You (Don’t) Complete Me: 9th Circuit Finds Rule of Completeness Doesn’t Apply to Defendant’s Confession

Federal Rule of Evidence 106 states that

If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part — or any other writing or recorded statement — that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.

As the recent opinion of the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Vallejos, 2014 WL 503537 (9th Cir. 2014), makes clear, however, fairness only goes so far.

In Vallejos, Eric Vallejos was charged with receipt of material involving the sexual exploitation of minors. After he was convicted, Vallejos appealed, claiming that the district court erred by allowing the prosecution to admit a redacted version of his conviction and precluding him from introducing other portions of that confession under Federal Rule of Evidence 106. Specifically, “Vallejos contend[ed] that the redacted version of his confession misled the jury because it left out parts concerning, among other things, his prior prison sentence, his drug history, and his church.” The Ninth Circuit disagreed, concluding that

This argument misunderstands the Rule’s purpose. The district court properly concluded that the Rule of Completeness is not so broad as to require the admission of all redacted portions of a statement, without regard to content….The district court explained that “[j]ust because somebody is putting in part of a transcript.. does not mean for the sake of completeness, everything comes in,” and it properly rejected Vallejos’s argument that the redacted portions should be admitted to show the jury the “flavor of the interview,” to “humanize” Vallejos, to prove his “character,” and to convey to the jury the voluntariness of the statement. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that—while this evidence might be relevant to “sympathy” and sentencing—the redacted statement was not misleading and therefore that the Rule of Completeness did not require admission of the full statement into evidence.

-CM