The recent Army Court of Criminal Appeals decision in the case of the United States v. Johnson, Case No.: 20220117 (A. Ct. Crim. App., 2024) reveals that it is not enough for a one's lawyer to know when to object but also for one's lawyers to have a sufficient court-room presence from which to interpose sufficient deliberation by the Court upon an objection from the Defense so that the attorney may direct the trial judge to the correct application of the rules of evidence in order to protect a client from an unfair result. The Johnson case reveals how a judge may misapply the rules of evidence and in doing so allow for the prosecution's evidence to go unchecked and unanswered. In particular, the trial court permitted the prosecution to introduced excerpts of an alleged victim's statement to investigators (i.e. CID), but then precluded the defense from asserting the rule of completeness which should have allowed the remainder of that alleged victim's statement to come into evidence at that very moment. The purpose of the rule of completeness has both a timing aspect and a completeness aspect. The completeness allows the whole story to be told rather than just particular parts that are cherry-picked by the prosecution and the timing aspect allows that whole story to be told immediately to preclude the defense from having to wait until the defense's case-in-chief to tell share the remainder of the story with the jury or panel.
Secure your future with an attorney who knows how to employ the rules of evidence to ensure a defendant has as fair trial and a just result. Contact our firm today.
