Are 911 Calls Admissible in Court?

Generally, any statements made during a 911 call fall under the hearsay rule and are inadmissible unless they meet exceptions to that rule. However, they can be admissible under res gestae exception if made with intense excitement due to an alleged crime in progress.

Confrontation Clause

The Confrontation Clause is one of several constitutional safeguards designed to ensure fairness in the criminal justice system. It guarantees accused defendants the right to confront their accuser at trial, but also sets limits on how witnesses may be used as evidence at trial.

For instance, the Confrontation Clause prohibits testimony against a defendant in court unless that witness has already been given an opportunity for cross-examination during previous judicial proceedings. Furthermore, it prohibits hearsay statements from being introduced into evidence.

These restrictions are commonly referred to as the “hearsay rule.” This mandate dictates that when a statement is offered in evidence, it must either be reliable or spontaneous. Reliable assertions must be based on factual assertions and have been made during an investigation or pending prosecution.

The Confrontation Clause generally favors face-to-face confrontation during trial, but it also places limits on how a defendant can be coerced or intimidated into testifying. This is especially pertinent in domestic violence cases where victims may feel fear and intimidation and refuse to appear in court.

Prior to 2006, many 911 calls could not be admitted into evidence if the victim failed to appear in court or refused to testify. In 2007, however, the United States Supreme Court ruled that certain 911 calls made during an ongoing emergency were admissible under the Confrontation Clause.

Recently in Washington State, Davis v. Washington, a case called Davis v. Washington, challenged the ability of judges to admit 911 statements into evidence when their victim did not attend trial. This case involved a common law exception to the Confrontation Clause which allowed testimonial statements to be introduced without witnesses present and considered previous judicial hearings during which they had been available for cross-examination by the accused.

The Davis court determined that testimony from a 911 call is only admissible when the declarant knowingly provided the functional equivalent of testimony to a government agent. Furthermore, any mistake in admitting these testimonial statements must be proven harmless beyond all reasonable doubt.

Res Gestae Exception

Under the Res Gestae Exception in court, 911 calls can be admissible as testimonial evidence. This exception to hearsay rule generally prevents hearsay from being considered in proceedings.

The test for credibility when making statements on 911 calls is whether they are spontaneous, or made without any preplanning. This logic assumes that statements made during these interactions should be treated as testimony because they reflect the caller’s experience with police or law enforcement officials.

When someone makes a 911 call, it is to report an incident and provide police with relevant facts of that crime. This data is intended for investigation, prosecution, and potential use at trial.

Thus, even when a caller believes they have lied or invented their statement, their statement remains testimonial. However, the primary purpose of a 911 call may not be for testimonial purposes if it serves to emphasize the urgency of the situation and demand immediate police assistance.

Particularly if the witness was fearing for her life, a court might consider the call nontestimonial because they could not have thought clearly and calmly about what they were saying to the operator.

Another consideration is whether the caller can recall what she said during the conversation. If so, the call is unreliable and should not be admitted as testimonial evidence under Res Gestae or principled exceptions.

The most frequent application of the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule occurs when a witness makes a statement in response to an emergency situation. These declarations must be reliable and necessary for trial to proceed.

The res gestae exception, developed in the 1920s by renowned legal scholar Edmund M. Morgan, has been refined within modern hearsay rules to become a limited exception to these rules. Its primary goal is to maintain the integrity of criminal justice proceedings while avoiding potential issues associated with other exceptions.

Principled Exception

A 911 call is a statement made to law enforcement or an ambulance dispatcher that may be admissible in court, though it often gets characterized as hearsay evidence.

Under the res gestae exception, statements made during an immediate and continuing emergency will be admitted as evidence. Alternatively, statements can also be admitted as evidence if they meet certain criteria.

For instance, a statement made immediately after an event may be admissible if said with the added pressure of excitement caused by that experience. In such cases, the res gestae exception does not apply and all statements will be judged admissible according to necessity and reliability principles.

Cross-examination of the declarationant will test these issues of necessity and reliability. The judge will decide if the declarationant’s statements can be trusted, having conducted a proper investigation.

Cross-examination is essential for any witness, including the declarant, to back up their statements under oath and provide context. If someone makes a 911 call and is called as a witness in court, it will be up to the judge or jury to decide whether their words are reliable and truthful.

At the trial of George Zimmerman for the murder of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, prosecutors used multiple 911 calls to support their assertion that Zimmerman was a vigilante protecting his community from black men who wandered through his gated Florida neighborhood. Raymond objected to these statements being introduced as testimonial evidence during the hearing.

Raymond asserted that police violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by introducing these statements. However, the State maintained that these were not testimonial in nature and thus not excluded under the Confrontation Clause.

Hearsay

Criminal cases typically apply the hearsay rule to exclude evidence that attempts to prove facts that are unknown. For example, if someone claims that Jim was driving a red car while you weren’t present, this information would be considered hearsay and inadmissible.

In a criminal trial, however, the hearsay rule can sometimes be applied to 911 calls. Depending on the facts of each case, arguments for and against admitting such calls into evidence vary.

Recently, a judge admitted a 911 call from a witness in a domestic assault case as an excited utterance under the res gestae exception and because it was necessary for establishing the defendant’s identity at trial.

Evidence such as circumstantial evidence can be particularly challenging to defend against, since it usually does not come from a witness present in court who can be assessed for credibility by the fact-finder. When police may not have enough physical proof to charge someone with a crime, a 911 call can be of vital importance.

Another issue with using 911 calls in court is that they could violate the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees defendants the right to confront witnesses against them. As such, many courts have ruled that 911 calls are inadmissible in court proceedings.

However, there are exceptions to the general hearsay rule, such as statements made under oath by a witness present in court who can be cross-examined regarding what they say. These assertions are known as “testimonial” statements.

When considering whether a statement is testimonial, the context and intent of the declarant are key. For instance, 911 operators are not investigators; rather they serve as conduits between callers and police, providing questions and directions so police have all relevant information for responding to an emergency. Furthermore, an operator’s statements are not considered testimonial if they do not mention the suspect and only serve to aid in an investigation or assist policing proceedings against that individual.