Consider this scenario: Your client is under cross-examination. The opposing counsel is reading from your client's deposition transcript. Your client admitted to something unfavorable. The judge hears it; the jury hears it. You can tell that it's affecting their opinions of your client. You are also aware that within the next page of the deposition transcript, your client provided an explanation for her actions that provides the context for the earlier answer. You object as you know there is an explanation for the answer that would also render the cross-examiner's question misleading. The cross-examiner objects stating, "counsel can redirect if he wishes." And the judge sustains the objection. What is your course of action? You know that waiting until the end of cross-examination could be too late as it is hard to overcome one's view on something once it is formed.

Cue Rule 106. Known as a version of the common law rule of completeness, if a party introduces an incomplete statement at trial, Rule 106 allows the opposing party to stop the proceedings and offer other excerpts necessary to properly recontextualize the statement before any other evidence is presented. For practitioners, Rule 106 can be a powerful tool – and for practitioners who litigate or have open cases in federal court, it is important to understand the Rule's expanded scope after new amendments to the Rule take effect on December 1, 2023.