2010.06.09 Prosecutors File for 911 Calls to Come into Trial

[RR0004]

Sorry if I'm a little slow to comprehend this...LOL So what you're saying is that the statements made by Cindy in the calls are irrelevant (or her opinion) and that the emphasis is on what we can hear Casey saying in the background?

It sounds to me that they have all bases covered.

 

[ohiogirl]

I don't think there was any emergency here, just a Grandmother realizing that what she already knew or suspected was true. IMO I think it should just be treated as a regular intterogation and the hearsay parts removed. IMO And I agree, why do you need Ca to say it when you actually have Kc saying it. I think what the Sa wants is to use the hearsay part of it, where Ca says I thought she was at the babysitters and now I have found out that she has been kidnapped. All hearsay IMO That is to show Casey changed her story proving conscious guilt, but would have to use hearsay to try to make that so. IMO This is just a daughter trying to keep her mother calm, knowing that she will lose it if she gets the truth, and not knowing how to break the news to her. IMO

And she was also trying to keep her mother calm by taking LE to Universal to show them her nonexistent office, and taking them to Zenaida's nonexistent apartment? It's not just snippets of evidence here and there, it is all of it put together. Cindy wasn't with her by then. Perfect opportunity to tell the truth.

 

[notthatsmart]

Cindy's exclamation, "It smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car!" during the 3rd 911 call is considered an "excited utterance". Therefore, an exception to the hearsay rule, pursuant to section 90.803(2), Florida Statutes 2004.


The following is not from the FL statute...(in a hurry so no time to search, but this is a general explanation from a NY site). Will try to find the exact FL definition when I get a spare few minutes. It is just a good general definition that is pretty universal, from my experience.



BBM

Bolded: How can it be an excited utterance if she cleaned the car and then went to work? This phone call was long after she smelled it. IMO

 

[logicalgirl]

Bolded: How can it be an excited utterance if she cleaned the car and then went to work? This phone call was long after she smelled it. IMO

You are right nts, as far as events went - but have you left out what followed after that? Cindy found ICA who told her Caylee had been missing for 31 days and THEN she made the 3rd 911 call with the excited utterance?

I think you are just pulling our legs here!:dance:

 

[notthatsmart]

You are right nts, as far as events went - but have you left out what followed after that? Cindy found ICA who told her Caylee had been missing for 31 days and THEN she made the 3rd 911 call with the excited utterance?

I think you are just pulling our legs here!:dance:

I am actually trying to disect what she said. What part was hearsay and what part was reaction, and what part was said to get the police out there. I am confident that the Judge will take this all into consideration since there is a lot of case law. If she said it smelled like a body was in the trunk to get the police to take her seriously, then that was an action after a thought proccess. IMO

 

[beach]

Bolded: How can it be an excited utterance if she cleaned the car and then went to work? This phone call was long after she smelled it. IMO

Because the call she made to 911 was immediately after Casey had told her (actually Lee, I think :waitasec that she had not seen Caylee in 31 days. She 'excitedly uttered' to the 911 operator that that smell was exactly what she thought it was and feared the most...

 

[marspiter]

Bolded: How can it be an excited utterance if she cleaned the car and then went to work? This phone call was long after she smelled it. IMO

You seem to be leaving out one important fact. Cindy did not know for certain that Caylee was missing until just before that 3rd phone call. That's a majorly importabt fact to be leaving out. I can argue 2+_=4 until someone points out the blank number is a 3.

 

[beach]

I am actually trying to disect what she said. What part was hearsay and what part was reaction, and what part was said to get the police out there. I am confident that the Judge will take this all into consideration since there is a lot of case law. If she said it smelled like a body was in the trunk to get the police to take her seriously, then that was an action after a thought proccess. IMO

BBM

Me too. I have complete confidence in HHJP.

 

[RainyGirl]

Bolded: How can it be an excited utterance if she cleaned the car and then went to work? This phone call was long after she smelled it. IMO

Recall the name of this thread----it is about the 911 calls being admitted as trial evidence----not about Cindy cleaning the car or going to work. Was Cindy on the phone with 911 and her words being recorded as she was cleaning the car and/or going to work?? NO. We are discussing the admissability of the 911 RECORDINGS (particularly the 3rd call which contains the absolute "classic" example of an "excited utterance"). The 911 RECORDINGS will 100% be admitted as trial exhibits.....and will not only be played for the jury, but the jury will also have transcripts of the call(s) in hand at this time. JMO....but I am very, very confident about this.

 

[The World According]

You are right nts, as far as events went - but have you left out what followed after that? Cindy found ICA who told her Caylee had been missing for 31 days and THEN she made the 3rd 911 call with the excited utterance?

I think you are just pulling our legs here!:dance:

You have that correct, you are just as your name implies, logical. It was not the car that got her excited, she tried to dismiss that in her mind. It was at the moment, literally that she overheard Casey tell brother that she had not seen Caylee in 31 days, and when despite her insisting to be taken to the baby,to even to see the baby to verify her safety,and even after being told no, not even Uncle Lee could do so, nor even a beloved, trusted family friend could do so...that is when she got "excited". There is no question about the level of urgency in her voice, no question at all. That woman was leveled to the floor!
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNZHO2EnZRw[/ame]
You have it spot on as usual. It is Mr. Baez that has, once again, a very poor understanding of the Florida Rules of criminal procedure. Mrs. Burdick sets out relative case law in her response. It is a must read!
"These fabrications demonstrate consciousness of guilt on the part of the defendant …"
"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."

State's response
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23858915/detail.html

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UodiwWf7fHw[/ame] One does not need an expert to differentiate the tone of the phone calls and how Cindy emotes in the third call. She can barely even catch her breath! Listen again, there is no question, this news is an utter shock to her!!! Even Andrea admits much of what the defense does is simply perfunctory.The judge and she had a little exchange about it, he said something to the effect of, I know Ms. Lyon, you are laying a record, it is your job to do so, and you may indeed do so, for the record. Though we can hear it for ourselves, we have lawyers and experts who have assured us, indeed the call is coming into evidence!
The phone calls and texts are going to be the nail in her coffin! [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX-0bfuneak[/ame]
www.floridabar.org

 

[notthatsmart]

Recall the name of this thread----it is about the 911 calls being admitted as trial evidence----not about Cindy cleaning the car or going to work. Was Cindy on the phone with 911 and her words being recorded as she was cleaning the car and/or going to work?? NO. We are discussing the admissability of the 911 RECORDINGS (particularly the 3rd call which contains the absolute "classic" example of an "excited utterance"). The 911 RECORDINGS will 100% be admitted as trial exhibits.....and will not only be played for the jury, but the jury will also have transcripts of the call(s) in hand at this time. JMO....but I am very, very confident about this.

Well I guess the reason I thought that was on topic is because it describes what she already knew.IMO She already knew for hours that the car smelled,IMO she had already made a 911 call before that and didn't mention the smell.IMO So that is definately on topic to what she knew when she made her statement.IMO It was not an excited utterance in that sense. IMO It was not new information. IMO

I agree that this is about the admissablility of the 911 recordings, but we must go back to what she knew to find out if it was an excited utterance. IMO

I am not saying this information should not come in, I am saying it should come in as an interview and hearsay removed by law. That is my opinion.

 

[notthatsmart]

You seem to be leaving out one important fact. Cindy did not know for certain that Caylee was missing until just before that 3rd phone call. That's a majorly importabt fact to be leaving out. I can argue 2+_=4 until someone points out the blank number is a 3.

Thanks, I like your analogy on this. So, in that sense, if you have information that you already know, then you find out new information, the information you already know becomes new again? I am trying to figure out what constitutes an excited utterance and I had thought it was suppose to be new information. IMO

Anyone can be excited at any given time. I asked my sister when she was 3 months pregnant if she was excited. She was very excited and very excited to talk about it, even though it was not new information. Excited Utterance must be a legal term with definition. IMO I read the defense side of this and the state side of this and they both make valid points. It seems to me the state wants to use the hearsay side to Ca statement to apply the conciousness of guilt. IMO Not so sure that is legal. Hope the Judge gives this one some serious thought. thanks

 

[logicalgirl]

Well I guess the reason I thought that was on topic is because it describes what she already knew.IMO She already knew for hours that the car smelled,IMO she had already made a 911 call before that and didn't mention the smell.IMO So that is definately on topic to what she knew when she made her statement.IMO It was not an excited utterance in that sense. IMO It was not new information. IMO

I agree that this is about the admissablility of the 911 recordings, but we must go back to what she knew to find out if it was an excited utterance. IMO

I am not saying this information should not come in, I am saying it should come in as an interview and hearsay removed by law. That is my opinion.

I can't say I agree with you here. Cindy does think things through - and although she was bewildered by the smell in the car - at the point she went back to work, and was sent home again, she knew she hadn't seen Caylee for a month, but she did not know ICA hadn't seen her either.

So, whether or not she had an immediate and horrifying connection between the two events, her desperation is clearly expressed in her voice as she made the third call. I think it's fair to say an "excited utterance" is an unchecked emotional statement. That is before applying any reason or logic. We've all been in situations where we've been shocked and said something that expresses our true emotions and may not have been completely appropriate.

What I like about HHJP is his objectivity. He removes emotions from his decisions and bases them on law, and case decisions. This decision re the motion for or against letting the third call "in", will be made with thought, clarity and as decisive as all his motion decisions.

 

[logicalgirl]

Excited Utterance = Kneejerk reaction. A statement or action that is an immediate emotional response to a situation.

Definition from the logicalgirl definitions located in brain section 3a:dance:

 

[goldleaf]

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

Thank you for the warm welcome

 

[TorisMom003]

Someone help me out here........what part of that 3rd 911 call is heresay? Casey is in the room with Cindy when she makes that call. Cindy is telling the operator what Casey told her while in the room, then Cindy puts Casey on the phone (pretty much forced her to take the phone) and Casey answers questions from the operator. So what part of all of that is heresay?

This trial is about Caylee, a beautiful 2 1/2 year old girl who's mother said went "missing". The 3rd 911 call was the call that Cindy told the operator that Caylee was "missing". Even if the smell in the car is to be questioned as if it is an excited utterance or not doesn't this tape come into play as part of the initial starting point for a "missing" child?!?

 

[Leila]

Well I guess the reason I thought that was on topic is because it describes what she already knew.IMO She already knew for hours that the car smelled,IMO she had already made a 911 call before that and didn't mention the smell.IMO So that is definately on topic to what she knew when she made her statement.IMO It was not an excited utterance in that sense. IMO It was not new information. IMO

I agree that this is about the admissablility of the 911 recordings, but we must go back to what she knew to find out if it was an excited utterance. IMO

I am not saying this information should not come in, I am saying it should come in as an interview and hearsay removed by law. That is my opinion.

There is no doubt about what CA knew and didn't know. She smelled the odor of a dead body in Casey's car that was retrieved from the impound yard. That piece of information was tucked in the back of her mind. When she found Casey later that evening, Casey assured her that Caylee was with the nanny and asleep. That piece of information made the odor of Casey's car not important at that moment because of Casey's assurances that Caylee was fine.

CA made the third and crucial 911 call moments after learning that Caylee wasn't fine - that Casey hadn't seen Caylee for 31 days, and that Casey now claimed the nanny kidnapped her. At that moment this new information and the realization that the car smelled like a dead body all merged into an excited utterance. At that very moment, it all came together in that 911 call.

I have no doubt that HHJP will rule in favor of admitting the 911 calls. More than any other case the 911 calls and other calls play an important role. Cindy's third 911 call is the call that set everything else into motion. It's the crux of this case.

 

[faefrost]

Well I guess the reason I thought that was on topic is because it describes what she already knew.IMO She already knew for hours that the car smelled,IMO she had already made a 911 call before that and didn't mention the smell.IMO So that is definately on topic to what she knew when she made her statement.IMO It was not an excited utterance in that sense. IMO It was not new information. IMO

I agree that this is about the admissablility of the 911 recordings, but we must go back to what she knew to find out if it was an excited utterance. IMO

I am not saying this information should not come in, I am saying it should come in as an interview and hearsay removed by law. That is my opinion.

The car smelling in and of itself does not make it an excited utterance. The "We can't find my grandaughter AND there smells like there has been a dead body in the car!" does.

As others have pointed out. If you haven't already done so (I am assuming you haven't since you keep going around in circles about this) please listen to the tape. Don't just read it what a transcript says or what someone else claims was said. The tape is pretty much the text book definition of an exited utterance. From listening to it there can be no other conclusion.

 

[LindseyLou]

Excited Utterance = Kneejerk reaction. A statement or action that is an immediate emotional response to a situation.

Definition from the logicalgirl definitions located in brain section 3a:dance:

I agree.
excited utterance = "The basis for this hearsay exception is the belief that a statement made under the stress is it is likely to be trustworthy and unlikely to be premeditated falsehoods"

 

[sleutherontheside]

I think in order not to keep going in circles that this may clear things up.

While yes, CA knew that KC and Caylee had been out of the home for those 31 days.....she did not know Caylee was officially missing. As far as CA's "knowing" something was wrong during that time......I think it is safe to assume that Caylee not being home and with her mother in an undisclosed location with limited contact qualifies as something wrong but not an automatic assumption of the worst possible scenario.

An excited utterance is one made when you don't have time to plan your statement out....when you react...when instinct takes over. Jose Baez wants to get this utterance thrown out becasue it does not bode well for his client. He had to make an argument to reasoning so his explanation was CA knew for 31 days that they were not home so that time should negate the statement as an excited utterance.

CA cleaning the car happened BEFORE KC's statement that Caylee was missing. SO while the wheels were turning in CA's head....she had likely not put 2 and 2 together. If she did perhaps that is why she was so anxious to go get KC later using the surprise visit to TL's apt.

THe defense is between a rock and a hard place.........they have to argue it wasn't an excited utterance due to the 31 days....and the car cleaning exercise...but statements made by the Anthony family show they were trying to see KC and Caylee during that initial time. He can't push it too far because it may open a door for hurting KC more than helping.

The utterance was made after KC's story of Caylee missing for 31 days. THis has been backed up with LA's official statements. The ONLY direction the defense can go is to argue the delay in the utterance AFTER the discovery of the smell. Why else do you think they have thrown pizza around so much. SO they can distance themselves from the dead body statement.

As far as going round robin about if the car cleaning is relevent..........it is likely an argument that the defense will use and thus discussion is open. Just keep it to a dull roar and see both sides.