Introduction

In litigation, one of the most common—and most dangerous—tactics is selective storytelling. A party introduces a snippet of a document, email, or recorded statement that appears favorable, while omitting the surrounding context that changes everything.

Texas law does not allow that.

The Rule of Completeness, codified in Texas Rule of Evidence 106, is a deceptively simple but powerful tool that ensures courts and juries see the whole picture—not just the parts someone wants them to see.

The Law: Texas Rule of Evidence 106

Texas Rule of Evidence 106 provides:

“If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may introduce any other part—or any other writing or recorded statement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.”
— Tex. R. Evid. 106

This rule is rooted in fairness. It prevents a party from creating a misleading impression by presenting only favorable excerpts.

Why This Rule Matters in Real Cases

In practice, Rule 106 shows up everywhere:

• Emails introduced without the full thread
• Text messages shown without surrounding messages
• Contracts quoted selectively
• Recorded statements clipped to remove context
• Deposition excerpts cherry-picked for summary judgment

The rule allows the opposing party to force the full context into evidence immediately, not later.

The Key Phrase: “In Fairness Ought to Be Considered”

This is where the rule becomes powerful—and strategic.

Texas courts interpret this to mean:

• The additional material must explain or qualify the admitted portion
• It must be necessary to avoid misleading the factfinder
• It does not have to be independently admissible in all contexts if fairness requires it

In other words, Rule 106 is not just procedural—it’s equitable in nature.

Important Interaction with Hearsay Rules

Here’s where things get interesting (and slightly counterintuitive):

Normally, hearsay is inadmissible. But under Rule 106:

• A completing statement may be admitted even if it would otherwise be hearsay, if necessary to correct a misleading impression
• Courts balance fairness against strict evidentiary rules

This makes Rule 106 a backdoor admission tool in certain situations.

Timing Matters: “At the Same Time”

One of the most overlooked aspects of Rule 106 is timing.

The rule explicitly allows completion evidence to be introduced:

• Immediately, not later in rebuttal
• During the same evidentiary moment

This matters because:

• First impressions stick with judges and juries
• Waiting until later may not undo the damage

A sharp attorney uses Rule 106 in real time, not as an afterthought.

Common Litigation Scenarios

1. Summary Judgment Battles

Opposing counsel quotes one paragraph of a contract.

You respond:

• Introduce the surrounding provisions
• Show the clause means something entirely different

Result: Their “clear language” argument collapses.

2. Text Message Evidence

A party introduces:

“I agree.”

But omits:

“I agree if the payment clears first.”

Rule 106 allows you to immediately introduce the qualifying language.

3. Recorded Statements

A clipped audio recording suggests wrongdoing.

The full recording shows:

• Sarcasm
• Context
• Clarification

Rule 106 prevents misleading edits from controlling the narrative.

Limitations of Rule 106

Despite its power, Rule 106 is not unlimited.

Courts will exclude completion evidence if:

• It is unrelated to the introduced portion
• It does not clarify or explain
• It is purely self-serving without context relevance

The key question is always:
👉 Does this additional material prevent the jury from being misled?

Strategic Use in Texas Litigation

Use It Proactively

Don’t wait. Object immediately:

“Your Honor, under Rule 106, we request admission of the full statement for completeness.”

Use It Defensively

Anticipate selective evidence and prepare:

• Full email chains
• Entire contract sections
• Complete recordings

Use It in Depositions

Lock in context early so it’s available later.

Use It in Jury Trials

Jurors are highly sensitive to perceived manipulation. Rule 106 helps you:

• Undermine credibility
• Expose cherry-picking
• Restore narrative control

Practical Example

A party introduces:

“The contractor agreed to complete the project by June 1.”

But omits:

“...provided that all materials were delivered on time by the owner.”

Under Rule 106, the second clause must be admitted, because without it, the statement is misleading.

Why This Rule Is “Quirky but Deadly”

Rule 106 doesn’t create new claims.
It doesn’t win cases by itself.

But it changes how facts are perceived—and that can decide everything.

It’s one of those rules that:

• Feels minor
• Gets overlooked
• Quietly determines outcomes

Conclusion

The Rule of Completeness is a reminder that litigation is not just about what is presented—but how it is presented.

Texas law recognizes that partial truths can be more dangerous than outright lies. That’s why Tex. R. Evid. 106 exists: to ensure that when evidence is introduced, it is done fairly and honestly.

If your opponent is telling half the story, Rule 106 gives you the right to tell the rest—immediately.

At David C. Barsalou, Attorney at Law, PLLC, we help clients navigate business, family, tax, estate planning, and real estate matters ranging from document drafting to litigation with clarity and confidence. If you’d like guidance on your situation, schedule a consultation today. Call us at (713) 397-4678, email barsalou.law@gmail.com, or reach us through our Contact Page. We’re here to help you take the next step.