## Facts

- Paul L. Glover served as vice-president and general counsel of a Chicago-area union and acted as a manager or trustee for union benefit funds.
- From about 1986 to 1992, Glover and union president John R. Johnson directed union Health and Welfare and Pension Fund investments to brokers without required trustee-board approval.
- The brokers paid kickbacks to Glover and Johnson tied to the steered investments.
- A federal indictment charged Glover with RICO conspiracy, multiple counts of soliciting and receiving kickbacks involving employee benefit plans, money laundering, and tax offenses.
- Glover’s first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury could not reach a verdict; Glover testified at that trial.
- At the second trial, Glover chose not to testify and invoked the Fifth Amendment.
- The government sought to introduce selected portions of Glover’s prior sworn testimony from the first trial as admissions of a party opponent.
- Glover argued that the rule of completeness (Fed. R. Evid. 106) required admission of virtually the entire 168-page transcript.
- The district court rejected wholesale admission, invited Glover to identify specific additional portions necessary to explain the government’s excerpts, and admitted only about 11 pages read by the prosecution.
- The jury convicted Glover; the district court imposed concurrent prison terms up to 84 months, supervised release, and forfeiture.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 106 by allowing the government to introduce only selected excerpts of Glover’s prior testimony rather than the full 168-page transcript.
2. Whether the district court erred by applying a two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting admission of the prior testimony to selected excerpts, given the purpose and limits of Rule 106 and Glover’s failure to identify particular necessary additional passages.
- The court upheld the two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.

## Legal Principles

- Fed. R. Evid. 106 permits contemporaneous admission only of those additional portions of a writing or recorded statement that, in fairness, are needed to explain or prevent a misleading impression from the introduced excerpt; it does not require admission of an entire transcript.
- A party invoking Rule 106 must identify the specific additional portions claimed to be necessary for completeness; an all-or-nothing demand may support limiting admission to targeted passages.
- Sentencing enhancements for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 are sustained when supported by record evidence of willful obstructive conduct; the district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error and guideline interpretation de novo.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that Rule 106 did not entitle Glover to have his entire prior-trial testimony read to the jury when the government introduced limited excerpts and he failed to specify necessary additional passages, and it affirmed the district court’s two-level obstruction enhancement and resulting sentence.


United States v. Glover, 101 F.3d 1183 (7th Cir. 1996)