Final answer:
The rule of completeness serves to prevent misleading impressions created by taking portions of writings or recorded statements out of context. Courts, however, do not have a consensus on whether it is a rule of timing or admissibility, with some tying it to the timing of evidence introduction and others to its necessity for fairness in admissibility.
Step-by-step explanation:
The rule of completeness in the context of legal proceedings pertains to the admissibility and presentation of evidence, specifically pieces of writings or recorded statements. It ensures that a quoted statement is not misleading by excluding surrounding context that would clarify its meaning.
However, there is no clear consensus among courts when it comes to determining whether it is primarily a rule of timing or a rule of admissibility. Some courts view the rule as allowing litigants to introduce additional parts of a document or conversation at the same time to avoid misleading the court, which suggests a rule of timing. Others consider it a matter that affects admissibility since it dictates what evidence must be accepted to ensure fairness, which implies a rule of admissibility.
The adversarial judicial system is designed to give both parties access to the relevant information, which inherently touches upon aspects of the rule of completeness. Disclosure within this system is meant to avoid trials by ambush and ensure that both sides can argue their case fairly based on the same body of evidence.
The complexity of assessing rules like the rule of completeness is heightened by the dynamic nature of the legal system and its interpretation. Notably, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes emphasized that the Constitution must be understood in the light of current experiences, underscoring the evolving approach to law and its application, including rules governing evidence.