Question for Legal Minds (Terri's case)

[7thOF7th]

I have a question for the qualified legal minds in the forum. The question is, if Terri Schiavo passes from a court imposed order, will this absolve or render immune from prosecution her husband if it is later found that he was responsible for her condition? Another question is, If she was to continue on the feeding tube but later succumbed to her injuries, would this be considered a homicide if it was found in an autopsy that her injuries were inflicted by her husband?

[tomahawk]

I believe the answers to your questions are "no" to the first and "yes" to the second.

[7thOF7th]

But to the first question, will he be responsible for her death?

[walford]

I want to add another legal implication of this case:

It is doubtful that most people who marry would consciously agree to put their spouse in the position wherein if they are disabled they would grant near arbitrary authority to spend funds allocated for health care on euthanasia lawyers, deny antibiotics, halt dental care, restrict parental visitation, forbid swallowing training, withdraw nutrition when the diagnosis is disputed etc.

This case dramatically illustrates the fact that at least in Florida, this is precisely what one is doing when signing on the dotted line of a marriage license.

Consider this precedent if you're contemplating marriage: Is this a person with whom I would trust my life more than my parents?

[tomahawk]

I believe that he could be, if the evidence was there and the prosecutor wanted to prosecute.

I doubt it will happen.

[7thOF7th]

I'm really trying to determine if he is exercising a "catch 22" to some culpability he may have in her condition.

[mlc9852]

I think Michael is pretty confident that an autopsy won't prove anything. I would think any injuries he inflicted would have healed long ago and even if they didn't, how would you prove he did it? But I think maybe they can pursue a wrongful death action. We'll just have to wait and see.

[7thOF7th]

Thanks for your insight.

[Dog Gone]

Normally, you are culpable in the eventual death of a victim if your actions caused the death, no matter how long ago it might have been. Florida may or may not have a statute of limitations on murder, perhaps someone else can tell you.

However, you're not responsible for the death if there's an intervening act which actually causes the death, in this case the removal of the feeding tube.

If I shove you off a skyscraper, but somebody shoots you on the way down and kills you, I'm going to be responsible for attempted murder, not the actual murder.

So, even if you had solid proof that Michael tried to kill Terri 15 years ago, the fact that he got a court to order her death is going to be a pretty good defense to a murder charge, assuming that one could even be brought at this date.

At least that's how I remember the discussion in law school. I don't practice criminal law.

[Pinetop]

I think you are right. He would not be the cause of her death. And, he could logically argue that, but for the court order for removal of the feeding tube, she could have lived until death by natural causes.

I don't think Michael Schiavo will ever have to confront that question, but he will be seen by certain compassionate people as more heinous than O.J. Simpson.

[Freedom Blitz]

Perhaps a civil wrongful death suit to prevent him from profiting on Terri's death.

[FormerACLUmember]

Question one: If Terri Schiavo passes from a court imposed order, will this absolve or render immune from prosecution her husband if it is later found that he was responsible for her condition?

Answer: Yes and no.

He is legally innocent for her death, but may be guilty of assault and neglect, assuming the statute of limitations have not run out.

Question two: If she was to continue on the feeding tube but later succumbed to her injuries, would this be considered a homicide if it was found in an autopsy that her injuries were inflicted by her husband?

Answer: Absolutely not going to happen, but the answer is "yes."

[mlc9852]

Fla. doesn't have stat. of limitations on murder.

[keats5]

Perhaps at best, he could be prosecuted for attempted murder. A prosecutor could certainly argue that his misrepresentation of Terri's wishes in a court of law proximately lead to the order that caused her death. But wouldn't the judge's order be an interceding cause?

I don't know. It's an interesting legal question. Sounds like he received some long thought out legal advice before requesting the removal of the feeding tube.

[supercat]

However, you're not responsible for the death if there's an intervening act which actually causes the death, in this case the removal of the feeding tube.

If the hospice were struck by lightning and Terri were electrocuted, that principle would probably apply, insofar as a person committing the original assault could not have reasonably anticipated that it would measurably increase the likelihood of the victim's getting struck by lightning.

In the extant situation, however, the "foreseeability" notion counts against Michael, insofar as his retained lawyer deliberately acted to have Terri fatally dehydrated.

Consider a slightly different scenario: suppose it were shown that Bob Smith deliberately battered his wife with the intention and effect of putting her into a persistent vegetative state, and he subsequently got Judge Greer to have her executed. If the facts were as stated, should Bob Smith be prosecuted for anything less than Murder in the First Degree? I would suggest that even if Judge Greer gave the order, the felony murder rule should still be quite applicable.

Florida Republicans need to recognize that if they don't start going after the crooks in their midst, they'll soon end up like the Illinois GOP. Even if they prevent everything from coming out, enough will come out to give a sufficient smell to render those who protected the Pinellas GOP unelectable anywhere else, except in the safest districts.

[Dog Gone]

All these broken bones that Terri supposedly had, which many at this forum accuse Michael of causing, seem to have a serious flaw. Even if he caused them, wouldn't someone have noticed them at the time? If she was covering for Michael in an abusive relationship, what was her cover story?

Where are the reports of her treatment for these injuries? None of this makes much sense.

[Brandon]

It is doubtful that most people who marry would consciously agree to put their spouse in the position wherein if they are disabled they would grant near arbitrary authority to spend funds allocated for health care on euthanasia lawyers, deny antibiotics, halt dental care, restrict parental visitation, forbid swallowing training, withdraw nutrition when the diagnosis is disputed etc.

I would be unwilling to marry someone who I could not trust in this manner. I suspect most people would agree.

[Dog Gone]

I think the question turns on whether Judge Greer is an independent actor or not. If Bob Smith bribed Judge Greer, that's an easy case.

But if the injuries Bob inflicted were not life-threatening, and Bob isn't in cahoots with the judge, then it's pretty clear that the death was caused by Greer, not by Bob. I think at most you'd be stuck with attempted murder, and probably far less.

[supercat]

But if the injuries Bob inflicted were not life-threatening, and Bob isn't in cahoots with the judge, then it's pretty clear that the death was caused by Greer, not by Bob. I think at most you'd be stuck with attempted murder, and probably far less.

If Bob Smith was actually fighting against the dehydration of his victim, then such an argument might hold water although I vaguely recall a case awhile ago in which an attempted murderer's efforts to keep his victim alive were disallowed; I believe he was charged with murder, though I don't remember for sure. Anyone else recall that case?

In the hypothetical as stated, however, the fact that Bob Smith is openly advocating for his wife's dehydration would seem to make it hard to argue that it was an unforeseeable consequence of his earlier battery. Rather, it would suggest that the death of Ms. Smith was the deliberately-sought outcome.

[Dog Gone]

It would be an interesting case, and I couldn't predict it's outcome. But from a purely legal analysis, unless Smith tricked the judge or bought his decision, it was the independent act of the judge, I think.

In my hypothetical above where I shoved a guy off a skyscraper, even my encouragment to the rifle-owing resident to shoot all jumpers probably gets me off the hook if he's a good shot.