## Facts

- An Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent interviewed Richard Garcia; the interview was recorded.
- At Garcia’s federal criminal trial, the agent testified from memory about statements Garcia made during the recorded interview.
- The government did not offer the recording or any transcript into evidence and did not introduce any portion of either.
- After the agent’s direct testimony, Garcia sought to admit a transcript of the interview under Federal Rule of Evidence 106 or a broader completeness doctrine.
- The district court excluded the transcript as substantive evidence but permitted defense counsel to use it on cross-examination to refresh the agent’s recollection (including allowing the agent to read it silently while answering).

## Issues

1. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 106 requires admission of a transcript of a recorded conversation when the opposing party introduced only testimonial recollection about the conversation, not the recording or any writing.
2. Whether a free-standing common-law completeness doctrine compels admission of the transcript even when Rule 106 is not triggered.
3. Whether exclusion of the transcript, if erroneous, was harmless given cross-examination using the transcript and the other evidence.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- Rule 106 did not apply because no writing or recorded statement (or part of one) was introduced; testimony recounting a conversation is not the same as introducing the recording or transcript.
- The court declined to recognize a broader common-law completeness doctrine that would expand Rule 106 to require admission of an unintroduced writing or recording.
- Any assumed error in excluding the transcript was harmless because the defense used the transcript to test the agent’s recollection on cross-examination, and admission of the transcript would have been cumulative.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 106 is a procedural mechanism triggered only after a party introduces a writing or recorded statement (or part of one) into evidence.
- Rule 106 does not create a right to admit a writing or recording merely because it relates to the same subject matter as a witness’s testimony about a conversation.
- In federal court, completeness for writings and recorded statements is governed by Rule 106 within its textual limits; completeness concerns do not independently authorize admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence.
- Cross-examination and permissible impeachment techniques, including refreshing recollection, are primary tools for addressing alleged omissions or distortion in testimony about conversations.
- Excluding evidence is harmless when the substance is presented through other admissible means and the excluded item would be cumulative and unlikely to affect the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that Rule 106 was not triggered by testimony summarizing a recorded interview, rejected an extra-textual completeness doctrine to force admission of the transcript, and affirmed because the defense’s use of the transcript on cross-examination rendered any exclusion harmless.


United States v. Garcia, 530 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2008)