"we might find that the problem is with how the law is written and not what Judge Greer did"
I agree with the above statement somewhat. I believe that not only is the law terribly flawed - but Greer used those flaws to suit his purpose.
I say that because I read several of the former nursing staff reports - which Greer totally discounted and chose to KEEP FROM BEING ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. Why would he do that except that those statements made Michael look like a monster. And .. I believe Michael was and is.
Then .. Greer allowed the husband to use TERRI's JURY AWARDED MONEY for the husband's own purposes. When the parents protested - Michael claimed the parents just wanted the money - yes they did - they wanted the trust fund money to spend on their daughter's care - not like Michael who spent it on lawyers to hasten her death.
I don't know what the judge's motives were - whether it was personal or otherwise. I only know that if Terri was my child I would be livid at how this judge went out of his way to provide an avenue for this husband to have her killed.
Also .. I believe that FL statutes say that the husband has acquired a "common law wife" becauses he has lived with Jody for a certain period of time. That means that he's married to two people. According to the statute I read, the husband has committed a crime by doing this - a crime which would prevent him from being appointed A GUARDIAN OF ANYBODY. Somehow the judge never seemed to take note of this condition, and a Motion [2002?] is still pending before Greer's court to have Michael removed for not fulfilling his responsibilities as mandated by his guardian status.
Greer has basically ignored that Motion - why? From what the nurses were saying and the husband's status of marriage - he should have been immediately removed from the position of guardian. I believe it was irresponsible on the part of the judge to allow Michael to stay on as guardian of Terri.
Now you may support Greer - that's fine with me - I've simply pointed out the problems I personally have with his actions. I'm not requiring anyone to agree with me.
I do not support the decision to terminate Terri’s life, and I do not support Judge Greer, nor do I have sufficient knowledge of the facts to say that he abused his discretion. Without getting into the law, on moral grounds, she would have been best served by allowing her parents to decide her fate. Given the following statute removing Michael was a decision that Judge Greer could have made or it would most certainly have been overruled on appeal. The statute is clear as to who shall serve as proxy.
765.401 The proxy.--
(1) If an incapacitated or developmentally disabled patient has not executed an advance directive, or designated a surrogate to execute an advance directive, or the designated or alternate surrogate is no longer available to make health care decisions, health care decisions may be made for the patient by any of the following individuals, in the following order of priority, if no individual in a prior class is reasonably available, willing, or competent to act:
(a) The judicially appointed guardian of the patient or the guardian advocate of the person having a developmental disability as defined in s. 393.063, who has been authorized to consent to medical treatment, if such guardian has previously been appointed; however, this paragraph shall not be construed to require such appointment before a treatment decision can be made under this subsection;
(b) The patient's spouse;
(c) An adult child of the patient, or if the patient has more than one adult child, a majority of the adult children who are reasonably available for consultation;
(d) A parent of the patient;
I am trying to be careful not to criticize Judge Greer because his decision was upheld in all the appeals. I find it hard to believe that so many judges would intentionally violate the law. I have read the case law, but not the entire transcript of the trial. It appears to me that Felos did a more persuasive job of lawyering and out gunned Pamela Campbell, who admittedly was at a disadvantage not having the funds and experience that would have benefited the Schindlers. If I am not mistaken her conduct of the trial was reviewed and was considered sufficient.
This we both agree upon: The law if flawed, and I expect that it will be amended.
If Judge Greer kept records from being presented that would be an issue that is appropriate to review on appeal. The admission of evidence is sometimes so complicated that it may not make any common sense. I’m not sure what evidence you are referring to, but the rule that permits a case to be reopened requires the production of “new” evidence. That is evidence that was not available at the time the original trial took place. Remember I am not being critical of Ms. Campbell, but she lacked the resources and perhaps the people who came forward after the trial was over, would not have come forward earlier even if Ms. Campbell had made a more complete investigation. As you might expect people do not want to become involved in litigation. Where were all the demonstrators prior to the trial on the merits? They were not engaged until someone said that Terri is going to die. Then the witnesses who had remained silent up to that point came forward, legally it was too late.
Greer allowed the husband to use TERRI's JURY AWARDED MONEY for the husband's own purposes. Greer is a county probate judge. He did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate that issue. Perhaps what he did amounted to a crime? That is a separate issue. A probate court is a court of very limited jurisdiction.
this judge went out of his way to provide an avenue for this husband to have her killed. I can’t comment on this since it would require reading his mind. His legal decision were reviewed on appeal and upheld, if that means anything? I agree that judges should not legislate from the bench, but that is a theoretical discussion and subject to interpretation. A jury trial would have removed some of the judge’s bias if he had any, since the jury would have decided if the proofs satisfied the “clear and convincing” evidence test.
I do not believe that a person can acquire a “common law” marital status if one of them is already married while the cohabitation took place, but that is just my best guess, I have not researched the issue.