United States v. Paul K. Costner

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “The rule covers an order of proof problem; it is not designed to make something admissible that should be excluded.”
• “Rule 106 is intended to eliminate the misleading impression created by taking a statement out of context . . . it is not designed to make something admissible that should be excluded.”
• “Rule 106 is intended to eliminate the misleading impression created by taking a statement out of context. The rule covers an order of proof problem; it is not designed to make something admissible that should be excluded.”
• ‚Rule 106 is intended to eliminate the misleading impression created by taking a statement out of context. The rule 20140749-CA 10 2016 UT App 189 State v. Sanchez covers an order of proof problem; it is not designed to make something admissible that should be excluded.‛

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).