New Location, Same Tradition: Goldstein & Orr Has Moved Offices Learn More

Client Testimonials
  • "I have known Ms. Orr for over a decade and she is an excellent criminal defense attorney with high ethical standards." by Peer Attorney Read More
  • "I'm very impressed how Mrs. Orr handled everything, she is very professional and I recommend Mrs. Orr if your in need an attorney for a white collar case!!!" by Anonymous Former Client Read More
  • "The best of the best above all the rest. Accept no substitutes." by Richard R. Read More
  • "I was so fortunate and privileged to have Mr. Goldstein in my corner. You will find none better." by Stephen Read More
  • "GGH has no equal in Texas or elsewhere. Cynthia Orr and Gerry Goldstein don't just defend their clients, they make law. I've watched them over the years take impossible cases and win." by Debra I. Read More

COUNSEL MAY DESIRE TO PIN DOWN THE “COOPERATING WITNESS” ON PARTICULAR ISSUES AND THEN OFFER CONTRADICTORY EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE BY WAY OF OTHER WITNESSES OR EXHIBITS TO DEMONSTRATE BIAS

U.S. v. Harvey, 547 F.2d 720 (2d Cir. 1976);

Wynn v. U.S., 397 F.2d 621 (D.C. Cir. 1967).

THIS MAY INCLUDE SUCH AREAS AS WHETHER WITNESS’ WIFE WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH DEFENDANT OR CO- DEFENDANT

 U.S. v. Jones, 320 F.Supp. 842 (E.D. Pa. 1981).

OR DESIRE TO PROTECT OTHERS

 U.S. v. Brady, 561 F.2d 1319 (8th Cir. 1977) (name of prior drug source was relevant to question of whether witness may have implicated defendant in order to protect her true source).

“RULE OF COMPLETENESS”

 “FED. R. EVID RULE 106:

Remainders of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements (“Rule of Completeness”).

When written or recorded statement or a portion thereof is introduced, the adverse party may “require at that item” any other part or any other writing or statement which ought in fairness be considered contemporaneously with it.

In re Air Crash Disaster, 635 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1980) (Rule requires playing of the entire tape and not just one channel);

U.S. v. Bacon, 602 F.2d 1248 (7th Cir. 1979) (remainder of witnesses statements supporting witnesses’ testimony on direct were admissible after statement used for impeachment on cross-examination by defense);

U.S. v. Weisman, 624 F.2d 1118 (2d Cir. 1980) (entitled to offer other portion of tapes only where same explain or rebut the matters contained in the offered portions or are “necessary to clarify or make not misleading that which in introduced”); U.S. v. Rubin, 609 F.2d 51 (1980), cert. granted, 100 S.Ct. 1645 (1980).

Purpose           To permit contemporaneous introduction of recorded statements that place in context other writings, which, viewed alone, may be misleading. U.S. v. Jamar, 561 F.2d 1103 (4th Cir. 1977).

The accused may be entitled to offer even otherwise inadmissible statements contained in related tape recordings under FED. R. EVID Rule 106; U.S. v. Sutton, 801 F.2d 134 (D.C.Cir. 1986) (error not to admit remainder of tape recorded conversations where in Defendant made self- serving statements which were otherwise inadmissible hearsay under R. 106, same found, although “harmless error”). See also U.S. v. LeFons, 798 F.2d 977 (7th Cir. 1986) (addressing dicta relating to recorded statement of government informant offered by defendant to supplement his recorded conversation offered in its entirety by the Government).

(210) 226-1463
  1. Attorneys
  2. Results
  3. Contact