2010.06.09 Prosecutors File for 911 Calls to Come into Trial

[ThinkTank]

It will be interesting to see how may objections JB and co will be filing.

The Defense has already filed Motions to keep the 911 calls out:

In the defense motion re Cindy's 911 calls,
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22797784/detail.html
they argue on pages 9 - 10 the calls should not be allowed in as evidence because the call was not made when the child was first missing, but thirty-one days later, meaning it was not new information; Cindy was aware for over a month that Caylee was not in the house that she lived in.

 

[tlcya]

That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. lol

So we want it in because it DID come 31 days after the child was missing to establish consciousness of guilt. And they want it out because it wasn't "new". Laughable.

In layman's terms we want it in because it is evidence of guilt and they want it out because, yep, you guessed it, it is evidence of guilt.

 

[sleutherontheside]

That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. lol

So we want it in because it DID come 31 days after the child was missing to establish consciousness of guilt. And they want it out because it wasn't "new". Laughable.

In layman's terms we want it in because it is evidence of guilt and they want it out because, yep, you guessed it, it is evidence of guilt.

In the words of Andrea Lyon.......If you don't like it...file a motion.

 

[ThinkTank]

First 911 call: http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/files/caylee911orlando.mp3

Second 911 Call: http://investigation.discovery.com/blogs/criminal-report/audio/01CayleeAnthony911.mp3

Third 911 call: http://investigation.discovery.com/blogs/criminal-report/audio/02CayleeAnthony911.mp3

Cindy called 911 first time; July 15, 2008 (8:08pm)
Grandmother: Hi I drove to a police department here on Pershing but you guys are closed. I need to bring someone in the police department, can you tell me where I can, the closest one I can come into?
Police: What are you trying to accomplish by bringing them to the station?
Grandmother: I have a 22-year old person that has grand theft sitting in my auto with me.
Police: So the 22-year old person stole something?
Grandmother: Yes
Police: Is this a relative?
Grandmother: Yes
Police: Where did they steal it from:
Grandmother: Umm my car and also money
Police: Ok is this your son?
Grandmother: Daughter
Police: Ok, so your daughter stole money from your car
Grandmother: No, my car was stolen we retrieved it today we found out where it was
retrieved it I’ve got that and I’ve got affidavits from my banking account I want to bring her in

[They didn’t know which jurisdiction Cindy was in – she was sitting in station parking lot. Cindy drove back to the house with Casey. Lee came and they talked to Casey for 45 minutes. Cindy wanted to know where Caylee was.]

Cindy Called 911 - 2nd time (8:44pm)
Police: 911 what’s the address of happening?
Grandmother: Umm I have someone here that I need to umm be arrested in my home. I have a possible missing child, there’s a 3-year-old that’s been missing for a month.
Police: A 3 year old?
Grandmother: Yes
Police: Have you reported that?
Grandmother: I’m trying to do that right now maam

[Cindy heard Lee and Casey talking, Casey crying. Casey said Caylee was kidnapped]

Cindy called 911 3rd time (9:41pm)
Police: 911 what’s your emergency?
Grandmother: crying .... I called a little bit ago, ...... the deputy – I found out my granddaughter has been taken, she has been missing for a month, her mother finally admitted that she’s been missing – get someone here NOW –
Police: OK, what is the address that your’re calling from?
Grandmother: We’re talkin about a 3 year old little girl – my daughter finally admitted that the babysitter stole her – I need to find her!
Police: your daughter admitted that the baby is where?
Grandmother: that the babysitter took her a month ago – that my daughter has been looking for her – I told you that my daughter was missing for a month – I just found her today, but I can’t find my granddaughter – she just admitted to me that she’s been trying to find her herself – there’s something wrong – I found my daughter’s car today, and it smells like there’s been a dead body in the damn car

 

[The World According]

Without these 911 calls, the authorities would never have known Caylee was missing in the first place. I think this judge will rule in favor of the prosecution.

Hello there. I just noticed you are new too. We are glad you are with us!:Welcome-12-june::Welcome-12-june::Welcome-12-june:

 

[ThinkTank]

I think the words "finally admitted" have relevance in that kc was holding off authorities to the very last possible moment she could (let alone the 31 days). These calls were how many hours apart?

The calls were "minutes" apart .... covering the time it took Cindy to drive from the parking lot of a closed police station, to her home, with Casey FINALLY revealing what has happened ... or Casey's version of what has happened.

The Defense is trying to say it was not "new info", but it clearly was.
As you pointed out - Cindy says her daughter "finally admitted" (Cindy had no knowledge previously).
Cindy also said she(Casey) "just admitted to me" (this knowledge came to Cindy within the past few minutes, before Cindy called 911).
And Cindy says "I found my daughter's car TODAY" (this IS clearly "new" information to Cindy).

IMO this is clearly an "excited utterance" by Cindy.

I guess the Defense have to give it a try though......

 

[whiteangora]

The Defense has already filed Motions to keep the 911 calls out:

In the defense motion re Cindy's 911 calls,
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22797784/detail.html
they argue on pages 9 - 10 the calls should not be allowed in as evidence because the call was not made when the child was first missing, but thirty-one days later, meaning it was not new information; Cindy was aware for over a month that Caylee was not in the house that she lived in.

I realize the defense has already filed motions trying to keep the calls out. What I was saying was IF the judge rules to allow the tapes will/can the defense still file more motions to not allow them.

 

[strawberry]

After reading the State's response I must say how reassuring it is to read their response bursting at the seams with case law citations and references.

Exactly my thoughts! I love the way they're already using CAs and LAs depositions. And what does she say about the hearsay part...calls the defense's interpretation of it as "odd" or something? LOL

 

[strawberry]

It was new to CA!! What was she supposed to say "oh it's been that long. ok then we'll just go on without her." ???

 

[sleutherontheside]

I have to say that as much as I respected Judge Strickland for going above and beyond in trying to give the defense leeway (in order to protect the legal process and the defendant's rights) I find Judge Perry to be an excellent Judge to preside over a case of this magnitude.

This motion regarding the 911 calls will, IMO, be heard and ruled upon according to case law. Case law seems to be a primary focus that Judge Perry relies upon......as ANY Judge in ANY case should.

 

[LindseyLou]

If the defense tries to call Cindy to the stand as a character witness for Casey then will that not open the door for all of the things that Cindy has said about Casey to be allowed to be heard? For instance, her comments to Amy, Tony, etc.

Cindy displayed her true fears during that final 911 call. As others have said it was the first and last time that Cindy has ever spoken the truth about what happened to Caylee.

Hi Guys! I'm new on here - this is my first post, but I have been VERY carefully following the Casey Anthony case since day one.

My question is - Do you think the defense will actually call the Anthonys to the stand as witnesses? Wouldn't it look bad if they didn't call them since they wouldn't have any "close" personal witnesses to call for Casey? But if they do call them wouldn't they also be sort of opening themselves up to a major liability since they're under oath?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Hi Guys! I'm new on here - this is my first post, but I have been VERY carefully following the Casey Anthony case since day one.

My question is - Do you think the defense will actually call the Anthonys to the stand as witnesses? Wouldn't it look bad if they didn't call them since they wouldn't have any "close" personal witnesses to call for Casey? But if they do call them wouldn't they also be sort of opening themselves up to a major liability since they're under oath?

:Welcome-12-june::Welcome-12-june::Welcome-12-june:

 

[LindseyLou]

Thank you!

btw, Judge Perry is awesome. In my opinion - I think he will ALLOW the 911 calls. I think they are crucial to the case. The discovery that she was missing, her mom's instant assumption that Casey had done something very wrong, and her verbal statement about the car positively smelling like a dead body (notice she didn't say like a rotten pizza).

 

[Aedrys]

HHJP should let these calls in, especially the last one if any of them. And as I recall (can't find a link), Casey incriminates herself in that last call by not wanting to talk to the operator, like she can't imagine why the operator would want to talk to her. Her mother had to force her to talk to the 911 operator.

Yeah, I can see where the defense doesn't want this there. Cindy's "damn dead body" comment and Casey's attitude are seriously incriminating. I'm betting Cindy wishes that last 911 call hadn't happened the way it did.

And the defense's argument makes no sense. So it's okay for Cindy to have sat on the information that her granddaughter was missing for 31 days? That's essentially what they're trying to say, that she already knew, so that call wasn't an excited utterance. Well shoot, if it is true, have her arrested for obstruction of justice. You don't get to sit on important information about a child missing, and then choose when you're going to tell the police about it.

I can't wait to hear them argue this at the hearing. I wonder what Cindy herself thinks of their argument. After all, the only thing it does is incriminate her!

 

[JSR]

After reading the State's response I must say how reassuring it is to read their response bursting at the seams with case law citations and references.

That's how most Motions should read. The only time it doesn't is if there isn't any case law to support your position.

 

[ThinkTank]

Hi Guys! I'm new on here - this is my first post, but I have been VERY carefully following the Casey Anthony case since day one.

My question is - Do you think the defense will actually call the Anthonys to the stand as witnesses? Wouldn't it look bad if they didn't call them since they wouldn't have any "close" personal witnesses to call for Casey? But if they do call them wouldn't they also be sort of opening themselves up to a major liability since they're under oath?

The Prosecutor, LDB, said in her filing: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23858915/detail.html
"Although the availability of the declarant is immaterial to the 90.803(1) and (2) exceptions to hearsay, it is expected that Cindy Anthony will testify in this cause. "

I believe the Anthonys will be called to testify perhaps by the Defense, but also will probably be declared as "hostile witnesses" if called by the Prosecution.

 

[JSR]

The Prosecutor, LDB, said in her filing: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23858915/detail.html
"Although the availability of the declarant is immaterial to the 90.803(1) and (2) exceptions to hearsay, it is expected that Cindy Anthony will testify in this cause. "

I believe the Anthonys will be called to testify perhaps by the Defense, but also will probably be declared as "hostile witnesses" if called by the Prosecution.

She will most CERTAINLY be a hostile prosecution witness. And I love how the SA made mention how the when given time to reflect the smell was then believed to be garbage or pizza! LOVE IT!

 

[ThinkTank]

I have to say that as much as I respected Judge Strickland for going above and beyond in trying to give the defense leeway (in order to protect the legal process and the defendant's rights) I find Judge Perry to be an excellent Judge to preside over a case of this magnitude.

This motion regarding the 911 calls will, IMO, be heard and ruled upon according to case law. Case law seems to be a primary focus that Judge Perry relies upon......as ANY Judge in ANY case should.

I agree 100%. The Judge will rule on case law. If the Defense can come up with ANY case law to support their motion ..... then it would be duly considered by the Judge. There is no reason for anyone in the audience during the Hearing on these issues, including the Defendant's parents, to become frustrated or shake their head in disagreement, when Judge Perry makes a ruling based on LAW.

It seems the issue at law is whether or not Cindy's 911 statements are classified as "EXCITED UTTERANCE" legally. And Prosecutor LDB laid out the reasons quite clearly, supported by LAW, as to why the 911 statements are admissible.

Prosecutor LDB said the State will NOT use the 2nd 911 call because it was not made in the presence of the defendant.

excerpts: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23858915/detail.html
Statements made by Cindy Anthony that immediately precede Casey Anthony's statements are relevant to show Casey's state of mind when making her statements to her mother or to the police. The fact of the calls as well as the content of the calls give context to the defendant's responses and set forth the circumstances in which the defendant "created" the kidnapping story after denying there was any problem locating Caylee Marie Anthony. These fabrications demonstrate consciousness of guilt on the part of the defendant, guilt being the ultimate material issue

(2) EXCITED UTTERANCE - A statement or excited utterance relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.
(1) regarding an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement;
(2) before there was time to contrive or misrepresent;
(3) while the person was under the stress or excitement caused by the event

The disclosure by Casey Anthony that Caylee was kidnapped by the nanny and missing for thirty-one(31) days, revealed just before the final 911 call was a sufficiently startling condition or event to meet the requirements of section 90.803(2). The statements were made while the event was ongoing, rather than being related after the event, negating the likelihood that Cindy Anthony had time to contrive or misrepresent; and the statements were made while Mrs. Anthony was under the continuing stress or excitement caused by the event. Mrs. Anthony's statements at a later date - for example that the smell in the car was from garbage or a pizza - are prime examples of what occurs when someone engages in "reflective thought."

However, there can be no question from her tone of voice, the content of her statements relating to the event in question (the alleged kidnapping of Caylee), her own description of her state of mind at the time of the call, and the time elapsed since Casey's "revelation", that Cindy Anthony's statements made during the last 911 call were made under the stress caused by the event.

 

[RR0004]

Do you think there is 12 people in the United States, let alone Florida, that does not know that Cindy called 911, and claimed that Casey's car smelled like a dead body?

I don't want to play the idiot here, but if I was called on the jury, and the judge didn't allow that into evidence, I would still consider it. You can't "unknow" something.

Would that also mean that the 911 operator wouldn't be able to testify?

 

[RR0004]

The Defense has already filed Motions to keep the 911 calls out:

In the defense motion re Cindy's 911 calls,
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22797784/detail.html
they argue on pages 9 - 10 the calls should not be allowed in as evidence because the call was not made when the child was first missing, but thirty-one days later, meaning it was not new information; Cindy was aware for over a month that Caylee was not in the house that she lived in.

...and if I remember it correctly she claimed in the very, very beginning that her daughter and Caylee were off bonding. So how do they explain that? Clearly, Cindy didn't believe something was wrong (not sure I do, though) We have her own words to prove it.