The de novo nature of the federal hearing is not intended to return to square one. The U.S. district judge will be looking at the record to determine if the patient was accorded the due process to which she was entitled and if findings of fact and conclusions of law as adjudged by Judge Greer are sufficiently supported by the record. His hearing is in the nature of a post conviction petition in an analogous criminal setting. The supervening issue is: Is the trial court's judgment adequately supported by the law that was applied in the context of the record facts. Witness credibility and controverted factual allegations are not weighted by the district judge, he is bound by the record, law and evidentiary sufficiency in his determination of due process.
I don't understand why the lawyers didn't argue that in 15 years great strides have been made in medical science and Terri has not had access to that science. She has been deprived of that right.
If that's how it's being looked at, I would hope that one issue is how buzzword-PVS got confounded with Florida law PVS.
This sounds more like an appeal than a new case. Have you read the pleadings? I was under the impression this was more like a civil rights case which gave the federal court jurisdiction (denial of life, liberty, due process, etc.). What you are saying is that it is a review of a lower court's judgment? How is that different from an appeal? (I'm so confused. :( )