## Facts

- Musa “Moses” Sweiss managed and part-owned a Chicago grocery store and was charged with arson-related conspiracy involving a competing store and with obstructing the ensuing investigation.
- A store employee, Bassam Faraj, solicited a customer, William Franklin, to burn the competitor for $1,500; Franklin contacted authorities, then recorded multiple conversations with Faraj while acting as an informant.
- After Faraj’s arrest and confrontation with the recordings, Faraj identified Sweiss as the person directing the plot.
- Sweiss’s trial defense was that he was framed to protect his uncle, a controlling business partner.
- Faraj later cooperated further and recorded two conversations with Sweiss: one in August and one in September.
- The government introduced the September conversation (via transcript); the defense sought to introduce the August conversation transcript as context for the September recording.
- When offering the August transcript, defense counsel did not expressly invoke Federal Rule of Evidence 106 or clearly present a rule-of-completeness fairness theory.
- The district court refused to admit the August conversation at the time and in the manner the defense requested, and Sweiss was convicted.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding the earlier (August) recorded conversation after the government introduced the later (September) conversation, particularly under the rule of completeness (Fed. R. Evid. 106).
2. Whether the defense’s failure to clearly raise a Rule 106 completeness argument affected the propriety of excluding the earlier recording.
3. Whether exclusion of the earlier recording caused unfair prejudice warranting reversal.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the August conversation at the time it was offered.
- The court emphasized that the ruling was tied to defense counsel’s strategic choices and the way the offer of proof was framed.
- On rehearing, the panel withdrew its original opinion but reaffirmed its conclusion that there was no abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have broad discretion over the admission, exclusion, and timing of recorded statements; appellate review is for abuse of discretion.
- Fed. R. Evid. 106 (rule of completeness) is not self-executing; the proponent must clearly invoke the rule or present a specific fairness-based completeness rationale to trigger contemporaneous admission.
- Rule 106 does not require admission of every related recording merely because another portion was admitted; the court assesses whether additional material is necessary for fairness and context at that time.
- A conviction will not be reversed absent a showing that the evidentiary ruling caused unfair prejudice amounting to reversible error, particularly where the record supports the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld Sweiss’s convictions, concluding that the district court acted within its discretion in excluding the earlier recorded conversation when the defense did not clearly raise Rule 106 and sought admission in a manner driven by trial strategy rather than a properly articulated completeness claim.


United States v. Sweiss, 814 F.2d 1208 (7th Cir. 1987)