Army Discharge Upgrade Lawyers

by admin on February 5, 2011

Discharge Upgrade Help

In United States v. Rodriquez, the CAAF held that in the military there are two separate rules of completeness, Rule 106 and Rule 304(h)(2). The CAAF found that Rule 106 is applicable where fairness demands that the remainder of the evidence be treated contemporaneously with the portions of the evidence submitted by the opposing side. They adopted a standard regarding Rule 304(h)(2) which permits for admissibility of statements given by the accused when the defense introduces the remainder of a statement or statements that are explanatory or relevant to the confession or admission of the accused previously offered by the government. This is permitted even if the statements the defense seeks to admit are otherwise inadmissible hearsay. The Court requires a case-by-case determination when the defense seeks to admit a series of statements as part of the original confession or admission so as to determine if they are part of an ongoing statement or a separate transaction or course of action.

If you need assistance with a military discharge upgrade help, then call a upgrade a discharge lawyer now.

In connection with a confession or an admission, read this rule in connection with Rule 304(h)(2) (where only part of the alleged admission or confession is introduced, the defense may introduce other portions). United States v. Benton, 54 M.J. 717 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2001). In United States v. Goldwire, 55 M.J. 139 (2001), the Court ruled that where defense counsel relies on the rule of completeness to admit portions of their clients statements into evidence through cross examination of a government witness they open the door to reputation and opinion testimony about the truthfulness of the accused. CAAF studied the likely use of the rule of completeness under both the federal and military rules, and also the common law doctrine of completeness.


Previous post:

Next post: