Why has no jury heard the Schiavo case?

March 27, 2005 | Critter

[Critter]

One thing has been troubling me for the last week. Why has no jury ever heard the Schiavo case?

Have the parents waived to right?

Heck, I really don't even know who is suing who in this case. I'm rather knew to what's going on.

But it seems to me that a case can be made that since no jury ever tried this case, Terri's, and/or the Schindlers constitutionally guaranteed right to a trial by a jury (7th Amendment) has not been satisfied.

Would it be possible at this point for the Schindlers to file an appeal based on that argument alone? And maybe get the feeding tube restored until a jury can hear the case and render a verdict?

[atomicpossum]

Terri is not considered a criminal. There is no crime being investigated.

She, essentially, is being treated as property, and is being (mis)handled by a county probate judge.

[expatguy]

Can President Bush do something?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1371677/posts

[G Larry]

And now, they are "administering MORPHINE" to a woman they assert can feel no pain!

The morphine will now be the mechanism of her death!

[Critter]

The 7th amendment pertains to civil cases. Here it is:

"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Can anyone argue that Terri's life is worth less than $20?

[FReepaholic]

...She, essentially, is being treated as property...

Exactly. As I understand it, she has never had an attorney represent HER.

The attorneys have been represeniting either her parents or her murderer...er, husband.

So essentially, she is being denied due process under the Constitution.

[muawiyah]

From time to time we come upon these anomalies in the law that suggest not everybody in the South was happy with the Compromise of 1876 and managed to slip "Negro Control" back into their law.

This particular situation in Florida where a living human being is being handled as property is highly suggestive of that being the case here.

I've been trying to figure out the class/race angle to this one but haven't quite done so ~ it's just that I suspect that's where this business comes from.

In former times, of course, this sort of thing would not involve white folk of course!

[Critter]

And even if you could argue that a life is worth less than $20, include in the suit the money Terri received in the malpractice suit.

[CitizenM]

Yes, morphine hastens death in situations like this. It will cause her heart to stop. It will be 100% euthanasia!

[Natural Law]

Because Greer presides over a Probate Court.

[OK]

Vox Day says:

If you insist on clinging to the political fiction of a Democratic-Republican dichotomy, you will find the next twenty years as mystifying as the last twenty. If, on the other hand, you understand that beneath the fiction is an orchestrated effort to transform a theoretically decentralized constitutional republic into a fully centralized member of a supranational oligarchy, everything not only makes perfect sense, but becomes quite predictable. Thus, I can confidently predict:

1. uniform state euthanasia laws
2. a ban on home-schooling, probably federal
3. a political union with Canada and Mexico
4. an elimination of the right to trial by jury
5. elimination of the separation of powers doctrine (this is already effective, but not apparent)
6. a ban on all political speech by unapproved parties (already in the works)
7. emigration restrictions
8. legally recognized polyamorous relationships
9. a global tax to fund a UN military

http://voxday.blogspot.com/

Also:

"But when there's a need to find an emanation or penumbra to kill an unborn child, well, the unelected nine-man American Commission can always find the time for judicial review. Mrs. Schiavo never stood a chance, you see, because demographics require killing off a lot more elderly people in the next thirty years."

[Critter]

Well then shouldn't the Schindlers take a suit to another court? And demand a trial by a jury?

[syriacus]

Yes, morphine hastens death in situations like this. It will cause her heart to stop. It will be 100% euthanasia

The ultimate goal is to force the "right" to Physician Assisted Death on Floridians

The other day, Felos thanked the ACLU for helping Michael's cause. Felos said Michael's cause was only able to succeed because of their help and the help of some others.

For years, the ACLU has been very busily fighting for the right to Physician Assisted Suicide. They know their way around the courts, all right.

Back in 1999, the ACLU gave an award and a dinner (!!the irony!!) to Former Chief Justice of the Florida State Supreme Court, Gerald Kogan, who supports Physician Assisted Death.

[dufekin]

We need to amend the Constitution to read:

"In suits at common law, regardless of the value in controversy and even if no value is in controversy, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

[dufekin]

No denial of due process here; Terri Schiavo is not a person. Judge Greer determined as a matter of fact that she is a xerophytic vegetable, not a person. Courts can make such a determination howsoever they chose.

[Future Useless Eater]

Great question.

If Terri was a serial killer-

• she would be entitled to TWO jury trials. One state, and the second, a federal 'de novo' (or do-over) with a new judge and jury
• the evidence that condemns her would have to convince a jury of her peers (12 UNBIASED citizens) or in her case, maybe 12 unbiased DISABLED citizens.
• the evidence would have to convince them UNANAMOUSLY, BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, (NOT just 51%, a preponderance of evidence, like Greer used)

[CitizenM]

Judge Greer determined as a matter of fact that she is a xerophytic vegetable, not a person. Courts can make such a determination howsoever they chose.

The vegetables in my garden get water, food (fertilizer), sunshine, care and tending. Better treatment than has been given to Terri in her last moments of life.

I heard Terri's brother say that relatives from out of town have started to come there, knowing death is certain. Michael will not let them visit her!!!

He is beyond cruel, he is a madman possessed by the devil, I am certain of it. The family will not have any visitation at the Hospice, no funeral ceremony because he is cremating her, and no graveside prayers because he is sending her to be buried in the Schiavo burial plot in Levittstown, PA.

I cannot imagine the depth of his evilness. It is a force to be feared, I am afraid. I have never, ever heard of someone not allowing relatives and friends to visit a person who is dying, unless it would cause the person more stress. He simply does not want anyone to see how she has truly declined. I can't imagine being a nurse or doctor in that facility. I would quit my job and go on welfare before I would do what Michael orders.

[Critter]

I'm looking at this from a civil angle rather than a criminal angle. Either way, a jury trial is guaranteed.

[atomicpossum]

Can anyone argue that Terri's life is worth less than $20?

I think that is the fundamental assertion of a great many people. I find it frightening.

[cajun scpo]

What would her lawyer do? What if he took the side that she would not have wanted feeding tubes after 8 years [amount of time in when case started in 1998]? You are suggesting she should have a lawyer that takes your view. That's representing you. Maybe she should have two lawyers. One representing each side. Wait we have that. Michael and the Schindler's. And 24 courts to make sure both sides were represented fairly. Does not mean it is the correct moral outcome. But I am not going to sink to the level of name calling of Michael and the court system in this case for following laws written by elected officials and signed by executive branches of government. That is 3 co equal branches of government. Some are advocating the court in this case take the liberal course, rule what you feel, ignore laws written by legislatures and ignore state and US constitution. Many courts are out of wack in this country, but not in this case. Maybe we need to review the laws written by legislatures and signed by governors and Presidents on right to die. Elect officials to do that.

From http://abstractappeal.com/

Michael's lawyer represented Michael, who took a very hard position regarding Terri's wishes. The Schindlers, on the other hand, took the opposite position, and they too had counsel. It was this dynamic -- adversaries with drastically different positions, each represented by counsel, and certainly one of them taking the position that Terri herself would take -- that eliminated the need for Terri to be represented by counsel.

As for the legislature considering the appointment of counsel, I will suggest that appointed counsel would be nothing but problematic. This is not a criminal case. In a criminal case, the defendant has a clear goal: avoid punishment. The state has the opposite goal: punish. There is nothing similar in a case like this. Imagine you are appointed counsel for Terri. What do you advocate? You cannot ask her what she would like to do, so you are forced to choose a side. How would you do that? If you choose the side she would not (or did not) support, then you are not at all advocating your client's interests. If you automatically advocate that she should be given all possible medical treatment, then you are really an advocate for the state, with its unceasing interest in prolonging life, and not an advocate for your client, who might not share that view under the circumstances.

When you factor in that the case already involves counsel who are taking opposite views on what the ward would want, it becomes apparent that a third attorney or set of attorneys would not only add nothing, it would likely distort the process. The whole purpose of the trial is to make the very determination that the ward's attorney would have to make before proceeding with the litigation.