Governor Bush Has Legal Authority, But Lacks Politcal Will To Save Terri Schiavo’s Life

THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER ^ | 10-17-03

[EternalVigilance]

any good that may come will be too high a price if they don't act now to save her.

[backhoe]

...any good that may come will be too high a price if they don't act now to save her.

Absolutely. Saving life comes first.

[Salvation]

Pro life bump!

[Theodore R.]

I doubt this judge has any shame

Who knows, with the moral breakdown, George W. Greer may ORDER the people of Pinellas and Pasco counties to reelect him next year or "else." And the people will be to fearful to ask about the "else" and just reelect George W. Greer! George W. Greer has been in office there since Reagan was reelected President.

[cpforlife.org]

Give me a Freepin break!

This is not Republican Bashing! I worked like a dog to help his brother get elected in 2000. I vote Republican every election because the DEMONrats are always bad in my state.

What is more important to you, a party or the God given, Constitutional Right to Life!?

[cpforlife.org]

"I have always wanted to be pinged to pro-life threads.... ...but I resent being pinged to a ...'Let's Bash Gov.Bush'... thread.
enough already! "

Guenevere,

This is not a 'Let's Bash Gov.Bush' thread.

It is a Let's get the truth, help save Terri, and Save our Republic thread.

And I did not ping you, cause you are not on my list

[Pan_Yans Wife]

They did not get to pick the judge.

If the court system was failing them so miserably, why didn't they try to have the legislature intervene and change the law?

[Tamzee]

"Freepin break" granted, though there was no need to ask for one... I didn't say your posts in particular, I said the Bush-bashing on the thread.

[supercat]

If the court system was failing them so miserably, why didn't they try to have the legislature intervene and change the law?

I don't think they realized that the fix was in soon enough.

Actually, while I think this case does highlight some of the problems with the judicial system, it's very difficult to change any aspect of the system without breaking something else.

If judges are fair and impartial, there are good reasons to have related cases go before the same judge. It saves a lot of time on exposition, and it discourages people from trying to "hedge their bets" in a case by breaking it up into smaller sub-cases in the hopes that at least one will land with a favorable judge.

On the other hand, it is quite clear that in this particular case, the rule that requires all matters in this case to go before Judge Greer is causing very bad effects. However reasonable the rule may be 99% of the time, in this case its effects are very unreasonable.

The question, then, is what to do. What I would suggest, though I don't know how this would work in practice, would be to establish a legal standard by which bench-trial findings of fact could be challenged (allowing the same for jury trials would probably require a Constitutional amendment). To prevent the system from being flooded by appeals of every single case, there should be a high standard of proof required to overturn any finding of fact, e.g. proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the original court was just plain wrong.

Under current standards, it is basically forbidden for any court to say that any other court's interpretation of evidence is wrong. Even if new evidence emerges which shows the earlier finding was factually incorrect, the earlier finding may only be reversed if such reversal can be done without impugning the earlier one, i.e. it would allow the judge to maintain that the earlier decision was correct for the evidence that was given. Further, new evidence may only be offered if the evidence was unavailable at the time of the original trial.

To use a somewhat extreme example (one where, admittedly, courts might bend the rules a little) supposed John Q Public is accused of killing Jane Smith. At his trial, he maintains that Jane Smith is alive, and he has seen her, but she has evaded any efforts to bring her to trial.

If John Q. Public is convicted and appeals his conviction, and Jane Smith walks into the appeals courtroom, John Q. Public would have to prove not only that she is still alive, but also--given he'd known of her state at the original trial--that he had made every possible effort to locate her for the original trial. If the state can convince a judge that John Q. Public should have been able to produce Jane Smith but was unable to do so, all the appeals in the world would be useless. [In practice, as noted, I think the state would make an exception in this particular case, but there have been plenty of cases where the state has refused to acknowledge the existence of evidence which is 100% exculpatory because it did not deem such evidence to have been presented in timely fashion.]

[cpforlife.org]

'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

[Sunshine55]

Sign this petition NOW!

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I do not understand your John Q Public analogy.If John Q. Public is convicted and appeals his conviction, and Jane Smith walks into the appeals courtroom, John Q. Public would have to prove not only that she is still alive?????

The reason being that we are all aware of cases where the convicted are released from jail because overwhelming new evidence, or simply DNA evidence, has been found and thus proves their innocence.

[supercat]

The reason being that we are all aware of cases where the convicted are released from jail because overwhelming new evidence, or simply DNA evidence, has been found and thus proves their innocence.

Yes, but the rules of legal procedure require that the defendant show that he could not have presented the evidence at the time of the original trial. If the state can convince a judge that the defendant should have been able to produce the evidence, then the defendant is cooked. Unless he can produce new evidence to prove that the previous evidence was unavailable to him, and he can prove that this new evidence was unavailable to him at the time of that appeal. Etc.

In cases where the evidence is too obvious, courts will sometimes let these legal procedures slide. But otherwise not.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

So at what point should the Schiavos have determined that their evidence was not strong enough to change the way that Greer would interpret the facts of the case?

If the legislature had been involved years back, perhaps there could have been a way to change legal guardianship rules. But to fight on that issue, and continue to lose, leaves them in a terrible predicament.

I am beginning to wonder if they had capable legal counsel.

[supercat]

I am beginning to wonder if they had capable legal counsel.

I've wondered that too. All their legal work has been done pro bono; I would expect her attourneys, even if well-intentioned, were significantly outclassed. Many of the appeals raised were basically frivolous, but I find it hard to blame attourneys who were desparate to try something--anything--rather than just give up.

In a lot of ways, the legal system is like baseball. If it's bottom of the 9th, score tied, bases loaded, 2 out, and the Umpire calls a pitch that bounces in front of the plate before a motionless batter "Strike 3", then the batter is out and the home team doesn't store. It doesn't matter whether or not the pitch meets any reasonable definition for a strike; if the umpire declares it a strike, it's a strike.

[supercat]

So at what point should the Schiavos have determined that their evidence was not strong enough to change the way that Greer would interpret the facts of the case?

Before setting foot in his courtroom for the first time (when they and Michael were still on the same side), when they would have had a chance to request a different judge.

Once they had the first hearing with Judge Greer, the fix was in.