She doomed Terri's fate with labeling her a vegetable. THAT is all these Judges are looking at. Plus you have contrary testimony not allowed in so it's ONE SIDED. The judges are probably thinking all of us are demented wackos, feeling bad about the situation but not seeing any point in letting Terri continue. Now it makes sense.
As for their questioning it's ALL scripted. I was in law school and left when I became pregnant. Of course they can pursue a question further but it's all scripted for them. It's not rocket science.
See: Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 29 Fla. L. Weekly S 679
In the recent opinion of the Supreme Court in Campbell v. Government Employees Insurance Company, Fla., 306 So. 2d 525, that court reversed this court's setting aside of a judgment for excess liability, holding that this court was not at liberty to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of facts since there was evidence to support the judgment. It stated:
In analyzing these issues, we adhere to the well-settled principle that an appellate court will not disturb a final judgment if there is competent, substantial evidence[*25] to support the verdict on which the judgment rests. Indeed, it is not the function of this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact. See Castillo v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 854 So. 2d 1264, 1277 (Fla. 2003) ("It is a basic tenet of appellate review that appellate courts do not reevaluate the evidence and substitute their judgment for that of the jury."); Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So. 2d 932, 939 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 349 So. 2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 1977)) ("It is not the function of an appellate court to reevaluate the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the jury."); Grounds, 311 So. 2d at 168 (stating that an appellate court is not authorized to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact).