Writings, recordings, and photographs - Completeness rule

Learning Outcomes

This article explains the Rule of Completeness under FRE 106 as it applies to writings, recordings, and photographs, including:

• How to identify when introduction of only part of a writing or recorded statement triggers the adverse party’s right to insist on additional portions.
• The precise elements of FRE 106, who may invoke it, and how courts determine whether additional material concerns the same subject matter.
• How judges apply the fairness requirement to decide what portions must be introduced immediately and what material can properly be excluded.
• How the Rule of Completeness interacts with hearsay doctrine, the Best Evidence Rule, and limited-admissibility principles on typical bar exam fact patterns.
• Strategies for analyzing exam questions involving contracts, emails, deposition transcripts, and recorded confessions that are presented in incomplete or selective form.
• Common traps on the MBE, such as answer choices that misapply FRE 106 to unrecorded oral conversations or photographs rather than writings or recordings.
• How to distinguish between a proper completeness objection, a hearsay objection, and a Best Evidence objection when multiple rules seem potentially relevant.
• How to use the timing aspect of FRE 106—requiring introduction “at the same time”—to prevent unfairly misleading impressions on the exam.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand rules governing writings, recordings, and photographs, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• The scope and operation of the Rule of Completeness (FRE 106)
• When an adverse party may compel introduction of additional parts of a writing or recorded statement
• The fairness rationale for admitting related evidence to avoid misleading the fact-finder
• The relationship between FRE 106 and other evidentiary doctrines (hearsay, Best Evidence, and limited admissibility)
• The limits of the rule: what it does not cover (especially oral statements and photographs)

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. Under the Completeness Rule, if a party introduces part of a written contract, the opposing party may:
   1. Only object to its admission.
   2. Require immediate introduction of any other part that in fairness should be considered.
   3. Wait until their own case-in-chief to introduce related parts.
   4. Exclude the rest of the contract as hearsay.
2. FRE 106 applies to:
   1. Only writings.
   2. Only oral statements.
   3. Writings and recordings.
   4. Only photographs.
3. The main purpose of the Completeness Rule is to:
   1. Exclude irrelevant evidence.
   2. Prevent misleading impressions from partial evidence.
   3. Limit cross-examination.
   4. Require all evidence to be introduced at once.

Introduction

The Federal Rules of Evidence recognize that presenting only part of a writing or recording can distort its meaning. To address this, the Completeness Rule (FRE 106) allows a party to require introduction of any other part—or any related writing or recorded statement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time. This rule ensures the jury receives a fair and accurate picture of the evidence, preventing one side from creating a misleading impression by introducing only selected portions.

Key Term: Completeness Rule
An evidentiary principle that, once part of a writing or recorded statement is introduced, permits the adverse party to require introduction of any other part—or related writing or recording—that in fairness should be considered at the same time so the fact-finder is not misled.

Although FRE 106 is short, it is powerful. It is frequently tested in scenarios where one party reads a few favorable lines from a contract, a letter, an email, or a recorded confession and the other side seeks to fill in the missing context.

Text and Basic Structure of FRE 106

In summary, FRE 106 provides that:

• If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement,
• The 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.

Each of these elements is examinable: who may invoke the rule, what triggers it, what material may be added, and when that material must be introduced.

Key Term: FRE 106
The Federal Rule of Evidence that codifies the Rule of Completeness. It allows an adverse party, once part of a writing or recorded statement is introduced, to require immediate introduction of other parts that fairness demands be considered together.

The Scope of the Completeness Rule

FRE 106 applies when a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement. Typical examples include:

• Contracts, letters, emails, and text messages
• Diaries and business records
• Transcripts of depositions or prior testimony
• Audio recordings (interrogations, phone calls, voicemails)
• Video recordings (surveillance, interviews, body-cam footage)

When this happens, the adverse party may then require introduction of any other part—or any related writing or recorded statement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time. The rule is designed to prevent the fact-finder from being misled by out-of-context or selective presentation of evidence.

Key Term: Adverse Party
The opposing litigant relative to the party who introduced the initial portion of a writing or recording; under FRE 106, only the adverse party has the right to insist that additional portions be introduced for completeness.

Key points about scope:

• The rule is triggered only after one side has put in part of the writing or recording.
• Only the adverse party may invoke FRE 106 (though the offering party is, of course, free to offer more on its own).
• The additional material must concern the same subject matter or be sufficiently related that it is needed to avoid a distorted impression.

Key Term: Fairness Requirement
The standard under FRE 106: additional material may be required only if, in the court’s judgment, fairness demands that it be considered at the same time as the portion already introduced.

The fairness requirement is the heart of the rule and is a classic source of exam difficulty.

When Does the Completeness Rule Apply

The rule applies whenever a party introduces part of a writing or recording, whether during:

• Direct examination
• Cross-examination
• A preliminary hearing on admissibility
• The presentation of exhibits

The opposing party may immediately require introduction of any other part that is necessary to explain, qualify, or place in context the portion already introduced. The court decides what is necessary “in fairness.”

Important boundaries for the MBE:

• Writings and recordings only: FRE 106 is explicitly limited (in its traditional form) to writings and recorded statements. It does not apply by its terms to purely oral conversations that were never recorded.
• Photographs: Photographs are not “writings or recorded statements.” FRE 106 does not directly govern them, although judges can address misleading partial use of photographs under general powers (e.g., FRE 403 and FRE 611).

Examiners like to test this by giving you a partial oral conversation and then offering FRE 106 as an answer choice. That is a trap unless the oral conversation was captured in a writing or recording that is being introduced.

Materials Covered and Not Covered

Covered:

• Signed contracts where only one clause is read
• An email chain where one side offers only a single message
• A recorded confession where the prosecution plays only the incriminating portion
• A deposition transcript where only carefully selected questions and answers are read

Not directly covered:

• An unrecorded oral argument between parties
• A live witness’s testimony recounting part of an oral conversation (unless the conversation is in a separate writing/recording now being introduced)
• Photographs and other real evidence

In those “not covered” situations, similar fairness concerns may be addressed through other rules (like FRE 403 or FRE 611), but not through FRE 106 itself—an important exam distinction.

Worked Example 1.1

During trial, Party A introduces a single paragraph from a lengthy written contract to show that Party B agreed to a specific delivery date. Party B objects and requests that the next paragraph, which contains an exception to the delivery date, be introduced at the same time. Should the court allow Party B's request?

Answer:
Yes. Under FRE 106, Party B may require introduction of the related paragraph immediately. The two paragraphs are part of the same writing and concern the same term (the delivery date). In fairness, the jury should see both the general rule and its contractual exception to avoid a misleading impression that the delivery date was absolute.

Worked Example 1.2

In a criminal case, the prosecution introduces a portion of the defendant's recorded confession where the defendant admits being at the scene. The defense requests that the remainder of the recording, where the defendant denies involvement in the crime, be played for the jury at the same time. Is this permitted?

Answer:
Yes. Once the prosecution has introduced part of the recorded confession, the defense, as the adverse party, may require introduction of other parts that explain or qualify the admission. The denial of involvement is directly related to the admission of presence at the scene and is necessary to prevent the jury from being misled by a selective excerpt.

Worked Example 1.3

On cross-examination, defense counsel confronts a witness with a single damaging sentence from the witness’s prior written statement to police. The sentence appears contradictory to the witness’s trial testimony. The prosecutor asks to have the full written statement admitted and read to the jury so that other sentences showing consistency can be considered. May the prosecutor rely on FRE 106?

Answer:
Yes. Defense counsel, by reading part of the prior written statement, has introduced part of a writing. FRE 106 allows the adverse party (here, the prosecutor) to require introduction of other portions that are necessary to understand the excerpt in context. The court may allow the entire statement or selected parts, depending on what is necessary in fairness.

Worked Example 1.4

The plaintiff testifies: “During negotiations, the defendant said, ‘We will definitely pay you a bonus if sales increase by 20%.’” There is no recording or written memorialization of this conversation. The defendant wants to introduce the rest of the conversation to show that the statement was clearly hypothetical. Can the defendant invoke FRE 106?

Answer:
No. FRE 106 applies only to writings and recorded statements, not unrecorded oral conversations. The defendant can still cross-examine the plaintiff to elicit the rest of the conversation and may use general relevance and fairness doctrines, but cannot rely on FRE 106 as a basis for mandatory contemporaneous introduction.

How Is Additional Material Introduced

If a party introduces a portion of a document or recording, the opposing party may request that related portions be introduced immediately, rather than waiting for their own case-in-chief. This “at the same time” requirement is central:

• It allows the adverse party to correct a misleading impression before it takes root.
• It prevents a party from “sandbagging” by putting in a distorted excerpt and forcing the opponent to wait days before responding.

The court retains discretion to determine what additional material is necessary for completeness and may exclude irrelevant or substantially prejudicial material under FRE 403.

Key practical points:

• The adverse party need not formally “offer” the additional portions as separate exhibits if the judge orders them read or played as part of completeness.
• The adverse party can insist on introduction even during the other side’s examination; the judge can interrupt and direct that more be shown or played.
• The court may require redaction of unrelated or inadmissible portions that are not needed for context.

Relationship to Other Evidence Rules

The Completeness Rule does not stand alone; it interacts with other evidence doctrines that are heavily tested on the MBE.

Interaction with Hearsay

The baseline rule is that evidence must satisfy hearsay requirements if offered for its truth. FRE 106 is not described in the FRE as a freestanding hearsay exception. However, as a practical matter:

• Many courts interpret FRE 106 to allow additional portions to be admitted when necessary for fairness even if they would otherwise be excluded as hearsay.
• In those courts, the completing portions are often admitted either:
  • For a limited context purpose (not for their truth), or
  • As effectively “curative” evidence when the proponent has opened the door by selective use.

For exam purposes, you should recognize the commonly tested formulation:

• FRE 106 does not automatically override all other rules of evidence.
• But if excluding the completing portion would seriously mislead the jury, many courts will admit it notwithstanding a hearsay objection.

This means that a correct answer choice may say something like: “The remainder may be admitted under the Rule of Completeness even though it would otherwise be hearsay, because it is necessary to avoid a misleading impression.”

Interaction with the Best Evidence Rule

The Best Evidence Rule (FRE 1002) governs how to prove the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph. It prefers the original (or a permissible duplicate) rather than testimony describing the contents.

• FRE 106 addresses which parts of a writing or recording must be presented once any part is introduced.
• FRE 1002 addresses how the contents must be proved (original vs. secondary evidence).

These rules can overlap. For example, if one side introduces a photocopy of part of a contract, the other side may invoke:

• The Best Evidence Rule (arguing that the original should be produced if the contents are at issue and no exception applies); and
• FRE 106 (arguing that other parts of the same contract must be shown as well).

On the MBE, do not confuse a Best Evidence objection (wrong medium or copy) with a completeness objection (wrong portion or missing context).

Limited Admissibility and Jury Instructions

When additional material is admitted under FRE 106, it may be relevant for one purpose but not another. In that case, FRE 105 (limited admissibility) permits the judge to instruct the jury that the evidence is to be considered only for a specific purpose.

Key Term: Limited Admissibility
A principle (codified in FRE 105) that allows a court to admit evidence for one permissible purpose or against one party, while instructing the jury not to use it for an improper purpose or against another party.

Example: The defendant’s self-serving statements in the remainder of a confession might be admitted under FRE 106 solely to give context to an admitted excerpt, with a limiting instruction that the jury may consider those statements only to understand the admitted portion, not as independent proof of the facts asserted.

What Does “In Fairness” Mean

Courts apply a flexible, case-by-case standard in deciding whether additional material “ought in fairness to be considered at the same time.” Factors include:

• How misleading the excerpt would be standing alone
• Whether the additional material explains, qualifies, or modifies the excerpt
• Whether the additional material concerns the same subject matter
• Whether inclusion would cause undue delay, confusion, or prejudice

Material that merely favors the adverse party but does not actually explain or qualify the excerpt is not required under FRE 106. The rule is about context, not about giving each side an equal amount of favorable material.

Worked Example 1.5

The prosecution offers a snippet from the defendant’s recorded interview: “I’ve done this kind of thing before.” The defense wants to introduce a later portion where the defendant says, “By ‘this kind of thing’ I meant drinking too much, not stealing.” Does FRE 106 require admission of the later statement?

Answer:
Probably yes. The later statement directly explains the meaning of the ambiguous phrase used in the excerpt. Without it, the jury could easily understand “this kind of thing” as referring to theft, creating a misleading impression. Fairness therefore requires that the clarifying portion be presented at the same time.

Limits and Misconceptions

Common boundaries, often turned into exam traps:

• FRE 106 is not a license to introduce every favorable sentence in a long document; only those parts necessary to avoid a misleading impression are required.
• FRE 106 does not give the proponent of the excerpt a right to insist on completeness; it is a tool for the adverse party.
• The rule does not apply to independent writings or recordings that are merely generally consistent with the first; there must be a sufficient relation such that completeness is implicated.
• The rule is about timing and context, not about discovery sanctions or general fairness of the litigation.

Application to Photographs and Oral Statements

As noted, the text of FRE 106 is limited to writings and recorded statements. Nevertheless:

• For photographs, partial use can be regulated under:

  • FRE 403 (balancing probative value against unfair prejudice or misleading the jury)
  • FRE 611 (court’s power to control the mode and order of presenting evidence)

• For unrecorded oral statements, completeness is typically handled through:

  • Cross-examination of the witness who testified about part of the conversation
  • FRE 403 and 611 to prevent unfairly partial presentations

On the MBE, if the fact pattern involves a photograph or an unrecorded oral conversation, an answer choice citing FRE 106 is almost certainly incorrect. Look instead for relevance, unfair prejudice, or scope-of-cross-examination rules.

Exam Warning

The Completeness Rule does not, in its traditional form, apply to oral statements that were never written down or recorded, and it does not apply directly to photographs. However, courts may use similar fairness principles by analogy, usually via FRE 403 or 611. Always check whether the evidence is a writing or recorded statement before relying on FRE 106 in an MBE question.

Revision Tip

Whenever a question presents a situation where only part of a document, transcript, or recording is introduced—especially a contract clause or a slice of a confession—ask:

• Has the adverse party demanded that more of the writing/recording be introduced?
• Is the additional portion necessary to explain, qualify, or prevent a distorted impression?

If so, FRE 106 is likely in play, and the correct answer will refer to completeness, fairness, or the right to have additional portions introduced at the same time.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• FRE 106 (the Rule of Completeness) applies when a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement.
• Only the adverse party may invoke FRE 106 to require introduction of additional parts “at the same time.”
• The court admits additional portions only if, in fairness, they are needed to explain, qualify, or avoid a misleading impression created by the excerpt.
• FRE 106 is primarily about timing and context; it does not automatically displace other rules of evidence.
• Courts may, in appropriate cases, admit otherwise inadmissible material under FRE 106 when necessary to prevent the jury from being misled, sometimes with a limiting instruction.
• The rule does not by its terms apply to purely oral statements or to photographs, though analogous fairness concerns may be addressed under other rules.
• FRE 106 interacts with the Best Evidence Rule (FRE 1002) and Limited Admissibility (FRE 105), but serves a distinct function from each.
• On the MBE, partial use of contracts, letters, emails, deposition transcripts, or recorded confessions is a classic signal that the Rule of Completeness may be tested.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Completeness Rule
• FRE 106
• Fairness Requirement
• Adverse Party
• Limited Admissibility