Gary was mugged on the street by two men with guns. He handed over his wallet and they ran away with it. Seconds later, in a state of great agitation, he called the police and reported the crime. In response to the questioning from the 911 operator, he told the police his location, a description of each of the robbers, and the direction in which they ran. The police caught the robbers ten minutes later and recovered Gary's wallet. The two suspects were charged with second-degree robbery. A few weeks before trial, Gary was hit by a bus and killed. At trial, the prosecutor sought to admit his statements during the 911 call. Assume Gary's statements are properly authenticated. Are they admissible? Group of answer choices Yes, because they are excited utterances and they do not violate the Confrontation Clause because of the they are not testimonial if made during on ongoing emergency. Yes, because they are excited utterances and the Confrontation Clause does not apply in criminal cases. No; although the statements are excited utterances, they are testimonial and the defendants had no chance to cross-examine Gary, so admitting the statements would violate the Confrontation Clause. No, because there is no hearsay exception that will admit the statements