Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge orders death without trial by jury!
American Constitutional Research Service | 10-18-03 | John William Kurowski

Posted on 10/18/2003 4:47:14 PM PDT by JOHN W K

American Constitutional Research Service

Florida Judge, George Greer, orders Terri Schiavo to die without trial by jury!

For background see Terri Schiavo wants to live

It is a fundamental and constitutional right to have a trial by jury, the “opportunity” to defend one’s self and confront one’s accusers, before being sentenced to death.

It is also a fundamental right to have an attorney at that trial, to be an advocate and speak for those accused, and then, it is up to a jury to make a decision based upon the evidence presented.

The judge in Terri's case has bypassed a fundamental right [trial by jury] and has arbitrarily made a decision which a jury, and only a jury ought to make, especially when the life of the accused hangs in the balance.

To the best of my knowledge the judge has not even made any attempt to personally try to communicate with Terri, the one he has order to be left to starve to death.

Maybe, just maybe Terri is capable of communicating but in an unusual way. The film I saw on TV indicates she is responsive and aware of her surroundings and this is what a jury ought to determine, and not a judge before sentencing her to death.

The judge has issued an arbitrary decision based upon “hearsay” and opinions of others without the accused having a chance to defend herself as commanded by the guarantee to a trial by jury, and in my eyes he is guilty of assisted homicide and Sec. 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whatever happened to the right to a trial by jury in which the accused, either by him/her self or their attorney, is at the very least given the opportunity to defend one’s self?

Once again, let me say, it is a fundamental and constitutional right to have the opportunity to defend one’s self and confront one’s accusers . The judge has denied Terri this fundamental right based upon hearsay and the unconfirmed opinions of others as to what Terri wants! If this is allowed to happen in Terri‘s situation, why have the constitutional guarantee to a trial by jury to defend one's self in the constitution if those rights can be abrogated by the testimony of others who assert you are incapable of defending yourself? Should you not be at least given the opportunity to defend yourself by the guarantees provided in our system?

Daniel Webster, in the Dartmouth College Case, stated: "By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities, under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment is not therefore to be considered the law of the land.’ - It is thus entirely correct in assuming that a legislative enactment is not necessarily the law of the land." - Judge Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations, 5th Ed. Little, Brown & Co.: Boston, 1883, Sec.353-54, p.432.

Also see:

"Due Process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.

JWK

American Constitutional Research Service


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dueprocess; jury; rights; schiavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

1 posted on 10/18/2003 4:47:14 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out --
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out --
because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out --
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me --
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
~~Pastor Martin Niemoller
(victim of the Nazis)

Is there anything we can learn from this?
When they came for the Catholics?
When they came for the Baptists?
When they came for the fundamentalists?
When they came for the agnostics?
When they came for the physically disabled?
When they came for the mentally disabled?

Just something for all of us to think about -- is this picture larger than we currently see it?


2 posted on 10/18/2003 4:49:31 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
"Compassionate Conservatism" to the rescue.........
3 posted on 10/18/2003 4:58:38 PM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
Governor Bush could stop this if he wanted to. He just doesn't want to get involved.
4 posted on 10/18/2003 5:04:59 PM PDT by concerned about politics (What have you done with your life? Have you donated to the Salvation Army this week?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
One thing about this has been bothering me.

Isn't true that the Chief Executive can pardon a CONVICTED MURDER up to the moment before his death?

That being the case, how can Jeb say he can't interviene in a case that is criminal even by cruelity to animal standards?
5 posted on 10/18/2003 5:07:28 PM PDT by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
Isn't true that the Chief Executive can pardon a CONVICTED MURDER up to the moment before his death?

I would think there are MANY ways that Jeb could intervene, if only to order the tube back in while he does a investigation.!!

6 posted on 10/18/2003 5:10:59 PM PDT by pollywog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
That being the case, how can Jeb say he can't interviene in a case that is criminal even by cruelity to animal standards?

Gov. Bush could stop it because there's conflict of interest by the husband. There's evidence of foul play. Her medical records show gross abuse leading to her condition. Broken bones and such.
Bush just doesn't want to get his hands dirty. Ordering an investigation could stop it. He has the power to do it.

7 posted on 10/18/2003 5:11:44 PM PDT by concerned about politics (What have you done with your life? Have you donated to the Salvation Army this week?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
Why not let this woman live as a Vegetable for another 13 years. Even a vegetable has rights. How come if the woman came in years ago with broken bones and bruises her husband wasnt investigated then? People are taken off machines and left to starve every day in this country. Shall we just stop taking tham off machines and let the medics keep them alive forever?
8 posted on 10/18/2003 5:25:04 PM PDT by sgtbono2002 (I aint wrong, I aint sorry , and I am probably going to do it again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
Jeb states even now that he cannot interfere with the ruling of the courts...yet by that argument, he could not issue a pardon or a stay of execution because THAT would be interfering with the court's decision of conviction and death sentence, which of course he DOES have the power to do. So his argument in Terri's case doesn't ring true, IMHO.
9 posted on 10/18/2003 5:27:35 PM PDT by shezza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
She's not on any machines whatsoever. All she gets is food and water. Period. Please tell me you don't consider food and water artificial life support.
10 posted on 10/18/2003 5:28:50 PM PDT by shezza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: shezza
. So his argument in Terri's case doesn't ring true, IMHO.

He's willing to let her starve rather than make political waves. I don't think people will forgive him for it.
I suppose a pro-life Republican will rise to run against him next election cycle.

11 posted on 10/18/2003 5:31:49 PM PDT by concerned about politics (What have you done with your life? Have you donated to the Salvation Army this week?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
Before you shoot from the lip, perhaps you should go HERE, get some facts, and form a more lucid opinion.
12 posted on 10/18/2003 5:44:42 PM PDT by Don W (Lead, follow, or get outta the way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
This case really highlights the need for everyone, no matter how old or young they are, to think about what they would want their loved ones to do for them if they were ever in such a situation and make those wishes known. Write them down. Give them to your doctor and your family. I think the only way that a judge should be able to starve someone like this to death is if they asked for it in the first place. Personally, I wouldn't want to be kept alive in such a state; but that's just me. Who really knows what Terri would have wanted? It's just her husband's word against her parents' word. Obviously her parents aren't ready to stop fighting. Schiavo should just divorce her, hand guardianship over to her parents, and get out of their lives.

13 posted on 10/18/2003 5:59:27 PM PDT by Pedantic_Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
Why not let this woman live as a Vegetable for another 13 years.

Why not let her live at least as long as there are people who care for her, and attempt rehabilitation at least to the extent provided for in her trust fund (noting that it may be necessary to sue Felos to get a fair amount of that money back)?

14 posted on 10/18/2003 6:19:22 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pedantic_Lady
Write them down. Give them to your doctor and your family.

If Terri had prepared a written and notarized statement of her wishes to be kept alive and given it to her parents (not her husband!), but Schiavo said she told him she'd changed her mind, do you not think Judge Greer would still have found Schiavo's statement (perhaps corroborated by his siblings) to be "clear and compelling" evidence that Terri wanted to die?

15 posted on 10/18/2003 6:21:22 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: supercat
I don't see how he possibly could have, but then again, I'm a reasonable person who wouldn't have made the same decisions Judge Greer has.
16 posted on 10/18/2003 6:24:54 PM PDT by Pedantic_Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
I thought that the FL governor could not be elected to a third consecutive term: that the state has a two-terms and out law, as in LA or MS. Askew, Graham, and Chiles all served two terms and did not seek third terms.

It may be that a right-to-life advocate in 2006 will be so marginalized in FL that he won't even get enough support to put his name on the ballot.

17 posted on 10/18/2003 6:30:55 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
There's a lot of pro-life feeling in many parts of Florida, particularly North Florida. However, politicians never try to capitalize on being pro-life because they are terrified of the Dem-controlled press.

But I think if they just had the cojones to do what they knew was right - that is, be openly pro-life - they'd get a lot more support than they expect. The press would attack them, but the press hates Republicans anyway, so I hardly see how that would change things for them.
18 posted on 10/18/2003 6:35:08 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: livius
After what the GOP did to Pat Buchanan, I can't ever see a prolife person challenging the party establishment's choice for much of anything. GOP voters are like the "lap dogs," as George Will the ABC commentator once described some politician who I will decline to name at this point. They just ratify what the "bosses" tell them to do.
19 posted on 10/18/2003 6:45:28 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Pedantic_Lady
From Florida’s Constitution:

SECTION 2. Basic rights.--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.

SECTION 9. Due process.--No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.

And what due process is provided for?

SECTION 22. Trial by jury.--The right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate. The qualifications and the number of jurors, not fewer than six, shall be fixed by law.

Where does a judge get the nerve to determine that Terri ought to be put to death...what has happened to the protection found in having a jury make that determination?

JWK

20 posted on 10/18/2003 7:22:25 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson