2010.06.09 Prosecutors File for 911 Calls to Come into Trial

[TorisMom003]

I just relistened to the 3rd 911 call to make sure my memory was correct. Casey herself gets on the phone with the 911 operator and tells her the same thing (more or less) that Cindy said. Caylee has been missing for 31 days, she is with the nanny (ZFG) who has been taking care of Caylee for almost 2 years. Even if the defense claims that what Cindy said in the tape is hearsay there is no way of getting around the fact that Casey herself claimed the same thing in the same tape. This tape is the starting point for everything that has happened since then. IMO there is no way in the world that the defense is going to get this tape thrown out.

 

[RR0004]

Its after the fact, not during it. IMO That is what makes it special. IMO

After what fact? Still not getting it. Caylee wasn't missing until she was declared missing by her grandmother. Isn't that what the last 911 call was about?

 

[Trapshooter]

No, the kidnap part is new, the part where she says she is with the nanny is old. So the part where she says she is with the nanny, is what Kc told her that she already knew. That is hearsay. The part where she says she has been kidnapped is new info.. If you put the two together, you get conciousness of guilt because she changed her story through hearsay. However, she did not change her story directly. That is the problem, using hearsay to create the conciousness of guilt. IMO

NTS I have copied the 911 transcript of Cindy's call. Would you mind bolding the part you think is hearsay and the part that you think is the "excited utterance"? It would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

Cindy: I called a little bit ago. The deputy sheriff ‘s (inaudible). My granddaughter has been taken. She has been missing for a month. Her mother finally admitted that she’s been missing. I want someone here now.

Dispatch: OK, what is the address that you’re calling from?

Cindy: We’re talking about a 3-year-old little girl. My daughter finally admitted that the babysitter stole her. I need to find her.

Dispatch: Your daughter admitted that the baby is where?

Cindy: That the babysitter took her a month ago. That my daughter’s been looking for. I told you 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.

 

[faefrost]

No, the kidnap part is new, the part where she says she is with the nanny is old. So the part where she says she is with the nanny, is what Kc told her that she already knew. That is hearsay. The part where she says she has been kidnapped is new info.. If you put the two together, you get conciousness of guilt because she changed her story through hearsay. However, she did not change her story directly. That is the problem, using hearsay to create the conciousness of guilt. IMO

Stop me if I am missing something obvious here... but it would be hearsay if the statements or testimony was coming from the 911 operator. She only learned of this second hand from Cindy. But Cindy is recounting a direct conversation or direct information imparted to her by the accused. And is doing so as part of an official public record system that very clearly spells out that it will be recording the caller. Further this statement is made with the accused present listening and participating at times. The recorded party CA, is further available for cross examination by the defense with regard to any statements they may have made to 911. I don't see any way that a judge will exclude this particular series of tapes. In fact the tapes are a far better option than attempting to depose or interview the 911 operators.

Yes there are and have been some specific situations where very specific 911 call tapes have at times (rarely, extremely rarely) been excluded in use at trial. I just don't see those circumstances here. In most cases judges do tend to lean towards permitting their use at trial. I think the judge will allow them all in, let the jury hear them and then the defense can cross examine CA about them to their hearts discontent.

 

[Just Jayla]

CA will be asked if KC was a good mother, and she has proclaimed several times that KC was an excellent mother and she would never suspect that KC could not take care of Caylee. As has been pointed out here, CA supposedly knew KC and Caylee were out "bonding."

However, in an exchange that was clearly heard within the first 911 call (to Orlando PD, they had to transfer CA to Orange's line), an exchange where we can clearly hear KC answer, and a conversation where it is public knowledge that eveyone on the line is being recorded, we heard:

CA: Cause my next thing will be down to child...thing...and we'll have a court order to get her. If that's the way you want to play, we'll do it and you'll never...

KC: No that's not the way I want to play...

CA: Well then you have...

KC: Give me one more day...

CA: No, I'm not giving you one more day, I've given you a month...

This call is so very important for the state to get into evidence.

 

[The World According]

I've always felt that ever since their fight on June 15th, CA was focused on one thing - Casey was purposely withholding Caylee from her to punish her. There's evidence of this in CA's MySpace page of July 3rd, where she states that her Caylee is missing from her life, due to jealousy.

I think that up until the moment that CA overheard Casey telling Lee that the nanny kidnapped Caylee, CA's central focus was on the ongoing battle between Casey and herself. She dwelled on that ongoing battle as the reason Casey would not lead her to Caylee at that very moment. She had tried to coerce Casey with threats of calling the police earlier in the evening.

When CA overheard Casey telling Lee about Caylee being kidnapped by the nanny, in that moment the light bulb came on and CA realized that Caylee was gone......not just being withheld from her, but gone!

Cindy's third, and most important 911 call, was made almost immediately after that moment of realization. Anyone who's listened to that call knows that CA's frame of mind has changed dramatically........she's now in a panic!

The whole world would have been with and remained with that thoroughly distraught, heart wrenched grandmother if she didn't go on to do the vile things she did. Two years later, and we have heard the call many times, it still just jumps out at you the visceral agony. You are right..... you can mark the spot with it, the moment that changed grandmother's life. Forever.

 

[texaslb218]

The whole world would have been with and remained with that thoroughly distraught, heart wrenched grandmother if she didn't go on to do the vile things she did. Two years later, and we have heard the call many times, it still just jumps out at you the visceral agony. You are right..... you can mark the spot with it, the moment that changed grandmother's life. Forever.

Thank you for that list of defense "requests" (temper tantrums, IMO).

There are many forks in the road for all of us..some more important than others, but all requiring our best judgment to be in gear. This fork in the road for Cindy has, in my opinion, effectively destroyed her life. I believe she made the decision to support Casey thinking this was her only option to save her family. In fact, by making the choice, she lost her future, her family, and her soul.

You rock, TWA. Keep us going!

 

[magic-cat]

No, the kidnap part is new, the part where she says she is with the nanny is old. So the part where she says she is with the nanny, is what Kc told her that she already knew. That is hearsay. The part where she says she has been kidnapped is new info.. If you put the two together, you get conciousness of guilt because she changed her story through hearsay. However, she did not change her story directly. That is the problem, using hearsay to create the conciousness of guilt. IMO

If the part about the nanny is heresay then so to is the part about the supposed kidnapping. BOTH of these stories came from KC with no proof or evidence in sight. There never WAS a nanny...that is where all this confusion comes from. There was NO job necessitating that there BE any nanny. The "nanny" story was just another lie in a long list of lies. There also was no kidnapping. There was a DEATH...and it was facilitated by none other than the very one propogating all the lies and fairytales. Caylee was never with the nanny. Caylee was never kidnapped. Caylee was killed-dead and gone before these 911 calls ever came to pass. She had been dead a full month before these calls. Who knew? KC. Cindy knew she had not SEEN Caylee for all of that month. And she KNEW when she smelled that car that something was wrong. Once she located KC and there was no Caylee? She may have been denying it inside her heart, but in her MIND she knew, thus the "there's something wrong, it smells like there has been a dead body in the damned car" utterance. The calls should be admitted. No question about it.

 

[shotgun09]

In the very beginning of this case, I was hooked because a child had been reported missing for a month. I had myself convinced that she was dead then, probably by her mother, and most likely (IMO then ) a tragic accident. I remember feeling that Casey was one of those unfortunate mothers who must have left their child in the car in the heat, and couldn't face anyone. In the days that followed however, when the 911 tapes were released and Casey still had not told the truth, was when I became convinced that something indeed more sinister had happened to poor Caylee. And, at THAT MOMENT when we hear Cindy's "excited utterance" on the tape, is when Cindy knew as well. The tapes are indeed the crux of this story, and must be allowed in.

 

[RainyGirl]

NTS I have copied the 911 transcript of Cindy's call. Would you mind bolding the part you think is hearsay and the part that you think is the "excited utterance"? It would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!


Cindy: I called a little bit ago. The deputy sheriff ‘s (inaudible). My granddaughter has been taken. She has been missing for a month. Her mother finally admitted that she’s been missing. I want someone here now.

Dispatch: OK, what is the address that you’re calling from?

Cindy: We’re talking about a 3-year-old little girl. My daughter finally admitted that the babysitter stole her. I need to find her.

Dispatch: Your daughter admitted that the baby is where?

Cindy: That the babysitter took her a month ago. That my daughter’s been looking for. I told you 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 above is a bump for NTS))



A few points regarding hearsay:

** Hearsay is most commonly referred to as "secondhand information".
Example: A person makes statements about what they heard about from someone else. These statements are given from a person who has not seen, heard or smelled the information "firsthand". That, in a nutshell, is hearsay. Hearsay is not admitted in court because it’s not considered trustworthy, as well as because of various constitutional principles such as the right to confront one’s accusers, however, there are so many exceptions that often times hearsay is admitted more than excluded. Perhaps the biggest exception to the hearsay rule is when a person makes an "excited utterance". More to follow on that! **

---> In the third 911 call, we hear information from both Cindy and Casey. The statements about the "nanny" from Cindy are spoken with the primary source of info present during the call. In fact, the primary source (Casey) also gets on the phone and does not contradict what Cindy said. She does indeed reinforce Cindy's statements. Cindy is clearly frantic and upset about just learning that Casey admitted that Caylee has been "kidnapped by the nanny". I would call this an exception to the hearsay rule, but that's for the Judge to decide. Of course, that is not the BIG ISSUE the defense is so worried about it. The big, giant ugly elephant in the room is the smell of decomp in Casey's car trunk.

--> Cindy's now infamous statement "it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car!" is a personal observation. It is something that SHE observed (smelled) and is conveying to the 911 operator. IF she would NOT have actually smelled the car in person (ie. Casey telling her what it smelled like--squirrels/garbage--and her telling 911) that could in essence be considered hearsay. However something that you experienced personally and have 1st hand knowledge of is not hearsay as defined by law. The "dead body" statement is considered an "excited utterance". The emotion in her voice is such that she was so shocked about what she just discovered ("nanny kidnapped Caylee...Casey has not seen her for 31 days) that she blurted it out without any questioning or provocation.

--> The reason for the hearsay exception is that if such statements are in response to the startling event, the trustworthiness of such statements comes from the fact the person calling 911 had no time to reflect and possibly fabricate the statements. Clearly, huge chunks of the 911 calls in this case fall within the perimeters of the “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule inasmuch as there was no opportunity for Cindy to reflect and falsify her account (think 3rd call and "dead body" smell statement).
According to the law, it takes a shock of some momentous occasion to elicit a spontaneous, emotional utterance. I believe Cindy was a bundle of stress and clearly upset when making the 3rd 911 call (in particular).

Ask yourselves this question: If Cindy somehow had time to "ponder" and "reflect" upon the worsening situation at hand, would she have STILL mentioned that the car smelled like a dead body??!! I doubt it!!!! That statement, more than any other, has the greatest liklihood of being played for the jury. I trust HHJP will adhere to the tenets of the law in this matter.

All of the above represents just my opinion.....

 

[mountaintime]

i've made a few excited utterances of my own while reading this thread.

rotfl!

 

[chefmom]

((The above is a bump for NTS))



A few points regarding hearsay:

** Hearsay is most commonly referred to as "secondhand information".
Example: A person makes statements about what they heard about from someone else. These statements are given from a person who has not seen, heard or smelled the information "firsthand". That, in a nutshell, is hearsay. Hearsay is not admitted in court because it’s not considered trustworthy, as well as because of various constitutional principles such as the right to confront one’s accusers, however, there are so many exceptions that often times hearsay is admitted more than excluded. Perhaps the biggest exception to the hearsay rule is when a person makes an "excited utterance". More to follow on that! **

---> In the third 911 call, we hear information from both Cindy and Casey. The statements about the "nanny" from Cindy are spoken with the primary source of info present during the call. In fact, the primary source (Casey) also gets on the phone and does not contradict what Cindy said. She does indeed reinforce Cindy's statements. Cindy is clearly frantic and upset about just learning that Casey admitted that Caylee has been "kidnapped by the nanny". I would call this an exception to the hearsay rule, but that's for the Judge to decide. Of course, that is not the BIG ISSUE the defense is so worried about it. The big, giant ugly elephant in the room is the smell of decomp in Casey's car trunk.

--> Cindy's now infamous statement "it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car!" is a personal observation. It is something that SHE observed (smelled) and is conveying to the 911 operator. IF she would NOT have actually smelled the car in person (ie. Casey telling her what it smelled like--squirrels/garbage--and her telling 911) that could in essence be considered hearsay. However something that you experienced personally and have 1st hand knowledge of is not hearsay as defined by law. The "dead body" statement is considered an "excited utterance". The emotion in her voice is such that she was so shocked about what she just discovered ("nanny kidnapped Caylee...Casey has not seen her for 31 days) that she blurted it out without any questioning or provocation.

--> The reason for the hearsay exception is that if such statements are in response to the startling event, the trustworthiness of such statements comes from the fact the person calling 911 had no time to reflect and possibly fabricate the statements. Clearly, huge chunks of the 911 calls in this case fall within the perimeters of the “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule inasmuch as there was no opportunity for Cindy to reflect and falsify her account (think 3rd call and "dead body" smell statement).
According to the law, it takes a shock of some momentous occasion to elicit a spontaneous, emotional utterance. I believe Cindy was a bundle of stress and clearly upset when making the 3rd 911 call (in particular).

Ask yourselves this question: If Cindy somehow had time to "ponder" and "reflect" upon the worsening situation at hand, would she have STILL mentioned that the car smelled like a dead body??!! I doubt it!!!! That statement, more than any other, has the greatest liklihood of being played for the jury. I trust HHJP will adhere to the tenets of the law in this matter.

All of the above represents just my opinion.....

A most excellent post, RainyGirl! Outstanding!

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[The World According]

((The above is a bump for NTS))



A few points regarding hearsay:

** Hearsay is most commonly referred to as "secondhand information".
Example: A person makes statements about what they heard about from someone else. These statements are given from a person who has not seen, heard or smelled the information "firsthand". That, in a nutshell, is hearsay. Hearsay is not admitted in court because it’s not considered trustworthy, as well as because of various constitutional principles such as the right to confront one’s accusers, however, there are so many exceptions that often times hearsay is admitted more than excluded. Perhaps the biggest exception to the hearsay rule is when a person makes an "excited utterance". More to follow on that! **

---> In the third 911 call, we hear information from both Cindy and Casey. The statements about the "nanny" from Cindy are spoken with the primary source of info present during the call. In fact, the primary source (Casey) also gets on the phone and does not contradict what Cindy said. She does indeed reinforce Cindy's statements. Cindy is clearly frantic and upset about just learning that Casey admitted that Caylee has been "kidnapped by the nanny". I would call this an exception to the hearsay rule, but that's for the Judge to decide. Of course, that is not the BIG ISSUE the defense is so worried about it. The big, giant ugly elephant in the room is the smell of decomp in Casey's car trunk.

--> Cindy's now infamous statement "it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car!" is a personal observation. It is something that SHE observed (smelled) and is conveying to the 911 operator. IF she would NOT have actually smelled the car in person (ie. Casey telling her what it smelled like--squirrels/garbage--and her telling 911) that could in essence be considered hearsay. However something that you experienced personally and have 1st hand knowledge of is not hearsay as defined by law. The "dead body" statement is considered an "excited utterance". The emotion in her voice is such that she was so shocked about what she just discovered ("nanny kidnapped Caylee...Casey has not seen her for 31 days) that she blurted it out without any questioning or provocation.

--> The reason for the hearsay exception is that if such statements are in response to the startling event, the trustworthiness of such statements comes from the fact the person calling 911 had no time to reflect and possibly fabricate the statements. Clearly, huge chunks of the 911 calls in this case fall within the perimeters of the “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule inasmuch as there was no opportunity for Cindy to reflect and falsify her account (think 3rd call and "dead body" smell statement).
According to the law, it takes a shock of some momentous occasion to elicit a spontaneous, emotional utterance. I believe Cindy was a bundle of stress and clearly upset when making the 3rd 911 call (in particular).

Ask yourselves this question: If Cindy somehow had time to "ponder" and "reflect" upon the worsening situation at hand, would she have STILL mentioned that the car smelled like a dead body??!! I doubt it!!!! That statement, more than any other, has the greatest liklihood of being played for the jury. I trust HHJP will adhere to the tenets of the law in this matter.

All of the above represents just my opinion.....

Your have a very learned and careful, spot on opinion. You are an All Star on team Caylee!!! The defense better hope for lesser people to make up the jury.:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

 

[Just Jayla]

In the very beginning of this case, I was hooked because a child had been reported missing for a month. I had myself convinced that she was dead then, probably by her mother, and most likely (IMO then ) a tragic accident. I remember feeling that Casey was one of those unfortunate mothers who must have left their child in the car in the heat, and couldn't face anyone. In the days that followed however, when the 911 tapes were released and Casey still had not told the truth, was when I became convinced that something indeed more sinister had happened to poor Caylee. And, at THAT MOMENT when we hear Cindy's "excited utterance" on the tape, is when Cindy knew as well. The tapes are indeed the crux of this story, and must be allowed in.

I was listening to Steph Watts (I think) show from July 2008-He had on one of the female attorneys from L.A., of course I don't remember her name but you can Google blogtalk for that timeframe...anyway, the attorney told the host that if KC were Caylee's father, no doubt it would have immediately been called a murder.
There are obviously statistical reasons for this assumption, but when the facts are weighed, I think we can reach beyond her sex and use our instincts on this one. I know what my instinct told me then and still tells me now...

 

[Just Jayla]

((The above is a bump for NTS))




---> In the third 911 call, we hear information from both Cindy and Casey. The statements about the "nanny" from Cindy are spoken with the primary source of info present during the call. In fact, the primary source (Casey) also gets on the phone and does not contradict what Cindy said. She does indeed reinforce Cindy's statements. Cindy is clearly frantic and upset about just learning that Casey admitted that Caylee has been "kidnapped by the nanny". I would call this an exception to the hearsay rule, but that's for the Judge to decide. Of course, that is not the BIG ISSUE the defense is so worried about it. The big, giant ugly elephant in the room is the smell of decomp in Casey's car trunk.

.

Respectfully snipped and BBM-Then the custody banter from the first call should be admitted as well, as it was an audible conversation between CA and KC.

 

[Macushla]

NTS I have copied the 911 transcript of Cindy's call. Would you mind bolding the part you think is hearsay and the part that you think is the "excited utterance"? It would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

Cindy: I called a little bit ago. The deputy sheriff ‘s (inaudible). My granddaughter has been taken. She has been missing for a month. Her mother finally admitted that she’s been missing. I want someone here now.

Dispatch: OK, what is the address that you’re calling from?

Cindy: We’re talking about a 3-year-old little girl. My daughter finally admitted that the babysitter stole her. I need to find her.

Dispatch: Your daughter admitted that the baby is where?

Cindy: That the babysitter took her a month ago. That my daughter’s been looking for. I told you 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.

Giving this another bump so it doesn't get 'lost' in the thread.

 

[The World According]

Thanks to Nums24 from the today's current news thread:

Casey Anthony: How would those 911 tapes play with a jury?
Caylee and Casey Anthony, George and Cindy Anthony, WESH — posted by halboedeker on June, 14 2010 10:38 AM

www.orlandosentinel.com

snipped:

Why are the tapes so important?

“They show how Casey Anthony reacted to her own mother’s distress, and that is not going to play well with the jury,” said Orlando attorney Richard Hornsby last week in offering legal analysis for WESH-Channel 2.

 

[AZlawyer]

It's tough to tell from the defense motion, but let's think about which parts of which 911 calls they actually want to exclude.

CALL #1: Nothing much here, except maybe the conversation between Cindy and Casey while on hold--Cindy threatening to take custody, Casey asking for "one more day." None of this is hearsay, because Cindy's statements would not be offered to prove the "truth of the matter asserted" and Casey's statements are statements of the defendant.

CALL #2:
Operator: Is Casey not telling you where her daughter is?
Cindy: Correct.

OK. So Cindy's (implied) statement here is: "Casey will not tell me where Caylee is." This is a statement that was made out of court by Cindy and would be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that Casey would not tell where Caylee was). This is a relatively calm call and includes all the silliness about the stolen car and money, so the statement might not qualify as an "excited utterance." It might qualify as a spontaneous statement describing a condition or event while the person (Cindy) was then perceiving the condition (Casey's refusal to tell where Caylee was). But even if the statement is initially excluded as hearsay, if Cindy lies about it on the stand it will come in under a hearsay exclusion for prior inconsistent statements of a witness.

CALL #3: We all know this is the one the defense is worried about.

Cindy (crying): ...Her, her mother finally admitted that she's been missing.
...
Cindy: ...[M]y daughter finally admitted that the babysitter stole her. ...
...
Cindy: ...he 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.
...
Cindy: ...I'm scared (unintelligible--crying hysterically). Caylee's missing. Casey has admitted Zanny took her a month ago. She's been missing for a month.
...
Operator [to Casey]: Can you tell me a little bit what's going on?
Casey (calm): My daughter's been missing for the last thirty-one days. ...
Operator: And that you know who has her?
Casey: I know who has her. I've tried to contact her. I actually received a phone call today now from a number that is no longer in service. I did get to speak to my daughter for about a moment, about a minute.
...
Operator: And you last saw her a month ago?
Casey: Thirty-one days. It's been thirty-one days.
Operator: Who has her? Do you, do you have a name?
Casey: Her name is Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez.
Operator: Who is that? Babysitter?
Casey: She's, she's been my nanny for about a year and a half, almost two years.
Operator: And why, why are you calling now? Why didn't you call thirty-one days ago?
Casey: I have been looking for her and have gone through other resources to try to find her, which was stupid. But...

OK, the statements from Casey are easy. Non-hearsay because (1) statements of the defendant, and (2) not offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted (i.e., the State will not be trying to prove that ZFG stole Caylee, or that Casey got a call from Caylee on July 15. Quite to the contrary.).

How about Cindy's statements? First of all, every bit of Cindy's part of this call would fall within the excited utterance exception IMO. This is like a law school exam example of an excited utterance. Notice that Cindy has dropped all attempts in this call to give some fake reason for the detectives to come--the car, the money--because she has finally realized that an actual emergency exists: Caylee is not just being hidden from Cindy but is actually MISSING. This puts the smell in the trunk in a whole new (terrifying) light for Cindy. Second, if Cindy is inclined to lie about any of these things (i.e., if she denies that she believed that the car smelled like a dead body) then those parts of the call will come in to impeach her.

 

[notthatsmart]

It's tough to tell from the defense motion, but let's think about which parts of which 911 calls they actually want to exclude.

CALL #1: Nothing much here, except maybe the conversation between Cindy and Casey while on hold--Cindy threatening to take custody, Casey asking for "one more day." None of this is hearsay, because Cindy's statements would not be offered to prove the "truth of the matter asserted" and Casey's statements are statements of the defendant.

CALL #2:
Operator: Is Casey not telling you where her daughter is?
Cindy: Correct.

OK. So Cindy's (implied) statement here is: "Casey will not tell me where Caylee is." This is a statement that was made out of court by Cindy and would be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that Casey would not tell where Caylee was). This is a relatively calm call and includes all the silliness about the stolen car and money, so the statement might not qualify as an "excited utterance." It might qualify as a spontaneous statement describing a condition or event while the person (Cindy) was then perceiving the condition (Casey's refusal to tell where Caylee was). But even if the statement is initially excluded as hearsay, if Cindy lies about it on the stand it will come in under a hearsay exclusion for prior inconsistent statements of a witness.

CALL #3: We all know this is the one the defense is worried about.

Cindy (crying): ...Her, her mother finally admitted that she's been missing.
...
Cindy: ...[M]y daughter finally admitted that the babysitter stole her. ...
...
Cindy: ...he 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.
...
Cindy: ...I'm scared (unintelligible--crying hysterically). Caylee's missing. Casey has admitted Zanny took her a month ago. She's been missing for a month.
...
Operator [to Casey]: Can you tell me a little bit what's going on?
Casey (calm): My daughter's been missing for the last thirty-one days. ...
Operator: And that you know who has her?
Casey: I know who has her. I've tried to contact her. I actually received a phone call today now from a number that is no longer in service. I did get to speak to my daughter for about a moment, about a minute.
...
Operator: And you last saw her a month ago?
Casey: Thirty-one days. It's been thirty-one days.
Operator: Who has her? Do you, do you have a name?
Casey: Her name is Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez.
Operator: Who is that? Babysitter?
Casey: She's, she's been my nanny for about a year and a half, almost two years.
Operator: And why, why are you calling now? Why didn't you call thirty-one days ago?
Casey: I have been looking for her and have gone through other resources to try to find her, which was stupid. But...

OK, the statements from Casey are easy. Non-hearsay because (1) statements of the defendant, and (2) not offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted (i.e., the State will not be trying to prove that ZFG stole Caylee, or that Casey got a call from Caylee on July 15. Quite to the contrary.).

How about Cindy's statements? First of all, every bit of Cindy's part of this call would fall within the excited utterance exception IMO. This is like a law school exam example of an excited utterance. Notice that Cindy has dropped all attempts in this call to give some fake reason for the detectives to come--the car, the money--because she has finally realized that an actual emergency exists: Caylee is not just being hidden from Cindy but is actually MISSING. This puts the smell in the trunk in a whole new (terrifying) light for Cindy. Second, if Cindy is inclined to lie about any of these things (i.e., if she denies that she believed that the car smelled like a dead body) then those parts of the call will come in to impeach her.

I see your point about the 3rd call, but what about the other call? I mean isn't that what they are trying to do is show that Kc changed her story, but do it through hearsay and not through Kc's mouth? Kc told the police that her daughter had been kidnapped. IMO She did not tell the police that her daughter was okay and at the babysitter. IMO The state wants both. IMO To show consciousness of guilt. IMO The latter (Caylee at the babysitter and is okay) is hearsay and not said with an excited utterance. IMO

Opinion: This is all Ca's doing. Kc is an adult and responsible for her own actions. It really is none of Ca's business what Kc is doing. Kc does not have to explain herself to Ca. IMO She got on the phone with the 911 operator and told her what happened. IMO However, she never had to go home with her mom, she never had to be cooperative with her mom, she was not living under her moms roof for a month. Kc was being very cooperative with her mother. So, this is not about Ca, it is about Kc and Caylee. The state is taking their eye off the ball again IMO. They need to prove that Kc did something to Caylee, and they are not going to do it through Ca's excited utterances.. IMO This is a classic case of he said she said.. They need some real proof here. IMO I think the Judge will prolly allow these hearsay calls in, but I do not think it will influence a jury that much. IMO The Jury is going to be looking to Kc the person on trial and not Ca. The state needs to prove Kc did this and not that Ca thought she did it. IMO

 

[sleutherontheside]

It's tough to tell from the defense motion, but let's think about which parts of which 911 calls they actually want to exclude.

CALL #1: Nothing much here, except maybe the conversation between Cindy and Casey while on hold--Cindy threatening to take custody, Casey asking for "one more day." None of this is hearsay, because Cindy's statements would not be offered to prove the "truth of the matter asserted" and Casey's statements are statements of the defendant.

CALL #2:
Operator: Is Casey not telling you where her daughter is?
Cindy: Correct.

OK. So Cindy's (implied) statement here is: "Casey will not tell me where Caylee is." This is a statement that was made out of court by Cindy and would be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that Casey would not tell where Caylee was). This is a relatively calm call and includes all the silliness about the stolen car and money, so the statement might not qualify as an "excited utterance." It might qualify as a spontaneous statement describing a condition or event while the person (Cindy) was then perceiving the condition (Casey's refusal to tell where Caylee was). But even if the statement is initially excluded as hearsay, if Cindy lies about it on the stand it will come in under a hearsay exclusion for prior inconsistent statements of a witness.

CALL #3: We all know this is the one the defense is worried about.

Cindy (crying): ...Her, her mother finally admitted that she's been missing.
...
Cindy: ...[M]y daughter finally admitted that the babysitter stole her. ...
...
Cindy: ...he 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.
...
Cindy: ...I'm scared (unintelligible--crying hysterically). Caylee's missing. Casey has admitted Zanny took her a month ago. She's been missing for a month.
...
Operator [to Casey]: Can you tell me a little bit what's going on?
Casey (calm): My daughter's been missing for the last thirty-one days. ...
Operator: And that you know who has her?
Casey: I know who has her. I've tried to contact her. I actually received a phone call today now from a number that is no longer in service. I did get to speak to my daughter for about a moment, about a minute.
...
Operator: And you last saw her a month ago?
Casey: Thirty-one days. It's been thirty-one days.
Operator: Who has her? Do you, do you have a name?
Casey: Her name is Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez.
Operator: Who is that? Babysitter?
Casey: She's, she's been my nanny for about a year and a half, almost two years.
Operator: And why, why are you calling now? Why didn't you call thirty-one days ago?
Casey: I have been looking for her and have gone through other resources to try to find her, which was stupid. But...

OK, the statements from Casey are easy. Non-hearsay because (1) statements of the defendant, and (2) not offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted (i.e., the State will not be trying to prove that ZFG stole Caylee, or that Casey got a call from Caylee on July 15. Quite to the contrary.).

How about Cindy's statements? First of all, every bit of Cindy's part of this call would fall within the excited utterance exception IMO. This is like a law school exam example of an excited utterance. Notice that Cindy has dropped all attempts in this call to give some fake reason for the detectives to come--the car, the money--because she has finally realized that an actual emergency exists: Caylee is not just being hidden from Cindy but is actually MISSING. This puts the smell in the trunk in a whole new (terrifying) light for Cindy. Second, if Cindy is inclined to lie about any of these things (i.e., if she denies that she believed that the car smelled like a dead body) then those parts of the call will come in to impeach her.

AZ...is it possible that the defense wants to argue that the car did not "belong" to KC??? The call number 2 was where CA wanted to (among other things) report the stolen vehicle right????

So would the defense possibly not want call # 3 admitted because CA stated it was "her daughters" car thus potentially eliminating their position that the car was a "shared" vehicle???