What you know, alibiers, welcome to another episode of Pretty Lies and Alibis. I'm Gigi. It's Saturday,

March 8th. Hope you guys have a fun weekend planned. We're going to go through the 911 call that

was made hours after Ethan, Zana, Kaylee, and Maddie were killed. There is an argument attached to the

transcript of this 911 call, So we're going to go through

that and read how the state argued that this call should be let in at trial. It is coming in.

And the reason we're getting some of this now is because the judge in the case was concerned

at the lack of transparency to the public regarding the

filings in this case. Let's read through the state's argument. It starts out

with the statements on the 911 call are hearsay but all within firmly

rooted hearsay exceptions and should be allowed. In general, testimony that is hearsay is excludable at trial.

However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Two firmly rooted exceptions are,

Idaho Rule of Evidence 8031, which is present sense impression, a statement describing or

explaining an event or condition made while or immediately

after the declarant perceived it. And also, Idaho Rule of Evidence 8032, which is excited utterance.

A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of the excitement that it caused.

The requirements of the federal version of each of these rules are best stated in U.S. versus

Mitchell.

There are three principal requirements which must be met before hearsay evidence can be admitted as a present-sense impression.

One, the declarant must have personally

perceived the event described. Two, the declaration must be an explanation or description

of the event rather than a narration. And three, the declaration and the event described

must be contemporaneous.

...