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 shes been missing. I want someone here now.
Dispatch: OK, what is the address that youre calling from?
Cindy: Were 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 daughters been looking for. I told you my daughter was missing for a month. I just found her today, but I cant find my granddaughter. She just admitted to me that shes been trying to find her herself. Theres something wrong. I found my daughters car today, and it smells like theres 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 its not considered trustworthy, as well as because of various constitutional principles such as the right to confront ones 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.....