Notice of Filing Memorandum Addressing Rule of Completeness — USA v. Thomas et al. (Dkt. 907, N.D. Ga.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS · Doc. 907 · 2024-02-07 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

-1- 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
v. 
TELDRIN FOSTER AND 
CARLA JACKSON 
 
Criminal Action 
No. 1:20-cr-296-JPB 
 
 
United States’ Memorandum Addressing Rule of Completeness 
The United States of America, by Ryan K. Buchanan, United States Attorney 
for the Northern District of Georgia, and Tal C. Chaiken and Samir Kaushal, 
Assistant United States Attorneys, and by Glenn S. Leon, Chief of the Fraud 
Section, and Siji Moore, Trial Attorney, respectfully files this Memorandum 
addressing the rule of completeness.   
  The United States seeks to admit portions of a December 10, 2020 recorded 
interview of Defendant Teldrin Foster.  Foster’s counsel have objected to the 
admission of three clips under the rule of completeness – exhibits 2250H, 2250J, 
and 2250M1 – and indicated that they will seek to admit approximately 40 
additional pages of the recording.  Because Foster has not identified any portion 
of those three clips that is misleading or distorted in isolation – let alone any 
portion that would justify admitting roughly an additional 20% of the interview – 
 
1 Foster objected to the admission of exhibit 2250D on relevance grounds 
and to the admission of exhibit 2250I based on an alleged prejudicial reference to 
violence in that clip. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 907     Filed 02/07/24     Page 1 of 5

-2- 
 
he cannot use Rule 106 to circumvent the hearsay rules and introduce otherwise 
inadmissible evidence.    
Where a defendant seeks to introduce his or her own prior statements, those 
statements are not “offered against an opposing party” and therefore do not 
qualify as non-hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2).  Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2); United States 
v. Willis, 759 F.2d 1486, 1501 (11th Cir. 1985) (affirming the district court’s ruling 
that the defendant could not elicit, through cross-examination of a government 
witness, his own exculpatory statements because placing a defendant’s remarks 
before the jury without subjecting the defendant to cross-examination is “precisely 
what is forbidden by the hearsay rule”); United States v. Santos, 947 F.3d 711, 729 
(11th Cir. 2020) (affirming district court’s admission of inculpatory portions of the 
defendant’s statements and exclusion of exculpatory portions of the defendant’s 
statements). 
When a portion of a recorded statement is admitted, the rule of 
completeness2 “‘does not automatically make the entire document admissible.’” 
Santos, 947 F.3d at 730 (citation omitted); see United States v. Umbach, 708 F. App’x 
533, 548–49 (11th Cir. 2017) (rejecting the defendant’s “all-or-nothing proposition” 
because an entire recording does not automatically become admissible when a 
portion is admitted).  Instead, additional material is admissible only if it is (1) 
 
2 While Rule 106 applies only to written statements, the Eleventh Circuit has 
held that the rule of completeness applies to oral statements through Rule 611(a).  
See United States v. Range, 94 F.3d 614, 620–21 (11th Cir. 1996).  When evaluating 
the rule of completeness as to oral conversations under Rule 611(a), courts apply 
the same fairness standard that applies under Rule 106.  See id.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 907     Filed 02/07/24     Page 2 of 5

-3- 
 
relevant to the issue for which the portion was introduced, and (2) “‘necessary to 
qualify, explain, or place into context the portion already introduced.’”  Santos, 947 
F.3d at 730 (citation omitted); United States v. Woodard, 662 F. App’x 854, 859–60 
(11th Cir. 2016) (district court properly held that rule of completeness did not 
require admission of additional material that was not relevant to the purpose for 
which the government introduced the evidence).   
Foster bears the burden of identifying additional portions of a recording that 
satisfy this standard.  See Umbach, 708 F. App’x at 549 (11th Cir. 2017) (district court 
properly rejected the defendant’s request to play entire interview, where the 
defendant did not specifically identify portions of the interview that were 
admissible under the rule of completeness).  That is, to admit additional portions 
of the material under the rule of completeness, Foster must identify portions of the 
material that are “misleading or distorted in isolation.”  United States v. Johnson, 
579 F. App’x 867, 870 (11th Cir. 2014) (district court properly rejected the 
defendant’s argument that additional portions would have “clarified” the 
defendant’s statements because admitted statements were not misleading).       
In Santos, for example, the defendant was charged with procuring 
naturalization unlawfully because he had lied about his criminal history in his 
citizenship application.  Santos, 947 F.3d at 716–17.  In a post-arrest statement, he 
admitted that he had previously been arrested and convicted of manslaughter in 
another country, but explained that he did not provide that information on his 
application because he thought the question related only to domestic arrests and 
convictions.  Id. at 717–18.  At trial, the court allowed the United States to introduce 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 907     Filed 02/07/24     Page 3 of 5

-4- 
 
the defendant’s admissions about his criminal history while prohibiting the 
defendant from introducing his explanation for his answers.  See id. at 718–19.  The 
Eleventh Circuit affirmed that application of the rule of completeness, concluding 
that “the later exculpatory part of Santos’s statement does not explain or clarify 
the earlier inculpatory part” and that the defendant’s admission as to the fact of 
his prior conviction was a “different topic” from the reasons why he did not 
disclose that conviction.  Id. at 729–30.    
Here, Foster “does not point . . . to any portion of the [interview] that [i]s 
misleading or distorted in isolation.”  Johnson, 579 F. App’x at 870.  Simply put, 
Foster seeks to use the rule of completeness to put before the jury evidence that he 
could not otherwise introduce without subjecting himself to cross-examination.  
For example, the interview includes various statements by Foster that Darrell 
Thomas “hustled” him several years earlier.   (See, e.g., pages 6–7).  Foster does not 
identify any clip the United States has sought to admit that is misleading or 
distorted without these statements from Foster.  In fact, exhibits 2250H, 2250J, and 
2250M address entirely different topics.  Further, Foster selectively omits portions 
of statements that he does not want the jury to hear, but that the United States 
could cross examine him on if he testified.  For example, on page 34, Foster omits 
his statement that he thought fake documents were being prepared for auto loans, 
but includes self-serving statements surrounding that statement.   
Foster’s self-serving hearsay statements early in the interview do not 
“explain or clarify” the later inculpatory parts.  Santos, 947 F.3d at 729–30.  Indeed, 
of the last half of the interview (pages 85-173) – where Foster admitted his 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 907     Filed 02/07/24     Page 4 of 5

-5- 
 
involvement after initially downplaying his involvement – Foster seeks to play 
only approximately two additional pages.  This underscores that nearly all the 
statements Foster seeks to admit are self-serving hearsay.   
 
Dated: February 7, 2024. 
RYAN K. BUCHANAN 
United States Attorney 
GLENN S. LEON 
Chief, Fraud Section 
 U.S. Department of Justice 
 
 
TAL C. CHAIKEN 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Georgia Bar No. 273949 
 
 
SIJI MOORE 
Trial Attorney, Fraud Section 
 U.S. Department of Justice 
 
SAMIR KAUSHAL 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Georgia Bar No. 935285 
 
 
600 U.S. Courthouse 
75 Ted Turner Drive SW 
Atlanta, GA 30303 
404-581-6000; Fax: 404-581-6181 
 
1400 New York Ave, NW 
Bond Building, 11th Floor 
Washington, DC 20005 
202-514-2000; Fax: 202-514-3708 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 907     Filed 02/07/24     Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.279867.907.0.pdf

Size

156,776 bytes

SHA-256

33a3baeb5c9fffc7c073f637a714b967d85dfb2481931c5b0e9c834ef4034f16

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.279867.907.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)