You might find this to be of interest. It is the website for the fully informed jury assoc. Lots of great info.
http://www.fija.org/
Nearly all states, and the federal government (TX being the notable exception) only allow jury trials in matters of law, not matters of equity. This would be a trial on a matter of equity and thus, in all reasonable likelihood, is not allowed by the FL rules of civil proceedure.
So no one get their hopes up here.
Well, you're right. Terri wasn't indicted for anything, so a trial by jury was never called for. Silly post.
Actually, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley called the jurors "incredibly stupid" because they expected the kind of evidence they see turn up on TV shows like CSI. He's right.
A "De novo" trial would result in EXACTLY the same decision because each side would get two neurologists and the judge would appoint a "tie-breaker." Now, where in the world does ANYONE think ANY of the judges who have already ruled would suddenly seek out a (for want of a better term) "pro-Terri" neuruologist? In fact, the judge (any of them) would select a neurologist who would validate all the previous findings.
Since this entire sordid episode is completely the workings of the State, including the courts, perhaps the solution lies in further involvement of the State--juries. Since there is nothing outside the State anymore, this shouldn't be a problem.
A jury trial would make sense in one additional way.
FL rules of procedure REQUIRE mediation before trial. Thus the parties would have been forced in front of a mediation. Felos, who is a hemlock society type, would be forced to have his positiion scrutinized before getting to the jury.
As it stands now, mediation would only carry the mere threat of going before the judge.
Which is pretty crazy when you think about it. What could be more "due process" than a jury trial?
Of course the whole notion of "incorporation" is pretty crazy, since the authors and sponsors of the legislation that became the fourteenth amendment were pretty clear that it would apply the bill of rights, and other guarantees and protections of individual rights contained in the federal Constitution against the states.
If it were a federal civil trial, and the amount in question was more than $20, a jury trial would be guaranteed. I guess a woman's life is worth less than $20?