In a nut-shell, if GA & CA testify as to what Casey said directly to them, it does not appear to be hearsay. If Lee were to testify that he heard Casey say something to his mom, then that would be hearsay.
I think it goes like this:
1. if person a testifies that person B told them something - it is not hearsay (Cindy testifies KC said she was in Jacksonville - admissiable)
2. if person a testifies that person B told them person C said something - it is hearsay (lee testifies that his Mom told him KC was in Jacksonville - hearsay)
I'm no lawyer/legal expert but in your exampes I think it would work as follows:
In ex. 1, if the attorney's question is "Did your daughter tell you she was in Jacksonville on so and so date?" Cindy's yes or no answer is admissable.
The attorneys goal here is to establish whether KC did or didn't tell her mother this - period. (He might later prove she wasn't in Jacksonville by having some proof she was somewhere else, this would show KC was lying.) Or he may have some other plan, but either way, he can ask CA this question and her answer is not hearsay as to whether KC told her this. It is simply her testimony in answer to the question.
However, if the attorney asks to this affect: "Isn't it true that on so and so date your daughter KC was in Jacksonville?" CA: "Yes, she was." Att: "How do you know?" Cindy: "She told me she was." This not admissable. It's hearsay because she did not witness it firsthand, she heard it secondhand from KC.
OR Att: "Where was your daughter KC on so an so date?" CA: In J' ville." Att: "How do you know?" CA: "She told me so." I believe these would be hearsay because here Att would be trying to establish KC was or wasn't, in fact, in Jacksonville, based nothing but Cindy hearing it secondhand from KC. Secondhand knowledge is not admissable. One can only testify of firsthand knowledge, unless it is one of those lists of exceptions that were posted, such as having seen a written record.
If Cindy saw KC there, was there with her, etc., then it would not be hearsay, as she would have seen it firsthand. Att: "Were you in J'ville w/ KC . . . ?" or "Did you see KC in J'ville . . . ?" CA: "Yes" or "No. OR "Was KC in J' ville on so and so date?" Cindy can testify to KC's wherabouts because she is claiming she witnessed them firsthand The jury could choose to believe this or not. But, the testimony would be admissable. The other side could not object on the grounds of hearsay.
Obviously, just because a testimony is admissable, that does not mean it proves anything. Based on the totality of the evidence the jury must decide if they believe a person's testimony.
In ex. 2, it would basically be the same. Lee could testify that his mother told him KC was in J'ville, if the attorney is trying to establish whether or not CA told him that. It's admissable, as he is testifying concerning firsthand knowledge.
Lee's testimony that KC was in J'ville based on his mother having told him she was, would not be admissable. He can't testify of secondhand knowledge, it's hearsay. The attorney cannot use Lee's testimony of something he received secondhand in an attempt to establish whether KC was, or wasn't, in J'ville.
As for all the information KC gave GA and CA concerning Zanny and what happened to Caylee, it would be admissable as testimony only if addressing what KC told her parents or whether ot not she told them a specific thing. As in: "What did KC tell you happened to Caylee?" or "How long did KC tellyou she knew ZFG." They would be giving testimony re: firsthand experience about what their daughter told them. In this line of questioning, anything KC told them is admissable.
They can not, however, testify as to whether or not any of what she told them is true, or discuss it as if it is true, because they did not witness it firsthand, they only
heard it, (i.e., it is, therefore,
hearsay.
I hope this makes sense. As I said, I'm no lawyer. This is just my take on it. (I do watch lots of Boston legal though, LOL
)
