One book that ignores this advice very completely is Romantic Comedy by Curtis Sittenfeld.

Yes, I have a case where the prosecutor put in the part of the defendant's statement where he acknowledged presence in the area, left out the part where he was shocked to hear the accusation and denied guilt. Defendant moved to put in more under the doctrine of verbal completeness, no dice.

Not to mention the defendant's statements come in if the prosecutor wants them to. But he can't introduce them himself. If he was interviewed and incriminated himself, it comes in. If he convincingly denied guilt, in practice it doesn't.

And there's absolutely no reason to think that grand jury materials would necessarily reflect the involvement of others. The point of the grand jury is to indict the individual defendant, not to show off everything investigators collected--materials about other people would likely be superfluous.

Yeah historically POTUS would have their pick of any top 20 firm.
Trump hires a guy whose website has to announce it’s “prestigious”