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

Skip to comments.

Law Professor says Schiavo's Testimony is NOT "hearsay"
Transcript Scarborough Country ^ | 3/25/2005 | quote

Posted on 03/25/2005 12:46:00 PM PST by RGSpincich

excerpt

Dershowitz...

But Florida has said essentially that a statement made to a spouse and repeated in court may be enough. By the way, I want to correct one thing. I don‘t want to be technical about it. But the statement is not hearsay. Let me tell you why. It‘s called in law a verbal act. That is, it is a statement allegedly made by Terri Schiavo simply testified to by her husband. It‘s not testimonial. It is a statement.

And he is not describing something that is hearsay. He is an eyewitness to that statement. ....

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: hysterria; knowthelaw; schiavo; terri; terrihysteria; terrischiavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-195 next last
To: RGSpincich

Besides, Dershowitz wants her to die.


21 posted on 03/25/2005 1:00:17 PM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativebabe

The reason Dershowitz is claiming this isn't hearsay if because Michael isn't testifying as to the truthfullness of Terri's supposed statment. He's only saying it happened. For example, if you hear someone say, "Once I kill my wife, I'll inherit millions," its not hearsay, assuming you actually heard it. Michael claims Terri said these things about not wanting to live that way - he's not testifying that she actually meant it. The truthfullness of Terri's statements are not at issue.

At least, that's how Dershowitz is presenting it. I'm not familiar with Florida law.


22 posted on 03/25/2005 1:00:22 PM PST by LanPB01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan
Why is one witness good enough to kill a disabled person?

Well, nobody is "killing a disabled person"...so that brings us to the flip-side question for you:

And why are "no witnesses" sufficient (to many people, at least) to deny someone of her rights?

Our rights are as important--more important--as our lives. Many Americans have sacrificed the latter for the former. One of those rights is the right to live or die, as an individual chooses...just as one is to bear arms or not bear arms, as one chooses, to speak out or not speak out, as one chooses.

23 posted on 03/25/2005 1:01:10 PM PST by Gondring (They can have my Bill of Rights when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WL-law

Virtually every inadmissible oral hearsay statement is witnessed (heard).

Witnessing a statement doesn't make it non-hearsay.

Hearsay statements cannot be used to prove the truth of the matter stated.

"I want to die" can't be used to prove she wants to die.


24 posted on 03/25/2005 1:01:35 PM PST by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: WL-law

So then you are saying that it was admitted as credible because no one else gave testimony to the contrary?


25 posted on 03/25/2005 1:01:35 PM PST by conservativebabe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: WL-law

http://merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: hearsay evidence
Function: noun
: evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath

------
Sounds like tortuous BS jargon to me.


26 posted on 03/25/2005 1:02:42 PM PST by demlosers (Soylent Green is made in Florida)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
Dershowitz is an idiot. I can't believe he made a mistake this elemental. Shows he's never in trial.

If the issue is whether Terri can talk or not, then Michael can testify that he heard her talk, and that is not hearsay, because Michael is a witness to the fact that she talked. If the issue is, however, whether she wanted to be killed, then a statement by the husband that he heard her say that she wanted to be killed is an out of court statement of fact by a witness (Terri) offered to prove the truth of the matter stated, namely that she wanted to be killed. As such, it is hearsay.

It's the same as if he testified that "Terri told me she was speeding when she got that ticket". Either one is hearsay. The only way it's not hearsay is if it's considered a "statement by a party". which is always admissible in civil cases, because a party can defend himself in court. Except in Terri's case, since she can't talk.

27 posted on 03/25/2005 1:02:50 PM PST by Defiant (Amend the Constitution to nullify all decisions not founded on original intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel

How about legalized hearsay?


28 posted on 03/25/2005 1:03:52 PM PST by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
Interesting! So much for the "hearsay" accusations. That's more like it!

"Verbal act" evidence has been defined as:

A verbal act is an utterance of an operative fact that gives rise to legal consequences. Verbal acts, also known as statements of legal consequence, are not hearsay, because the statement is admitted merely to show that it was actually made, not to prove the truth of what was asserted in it.

Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 801.11[3] (Joseph McLaughlin, ed. Matthew Bender 2d ed.2000); see also Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 801.6 (2000 ed.). For utterances to be admissible as verbal acts, (1) the conduct to be characterized by the words must be independently material to the issue; (2) the conduct must be equivocal; (3) the words must aid in giving legal significance to the conduct; and (4) the words must accompany the conduct. See 6 Wigmore, Evidence §1772 (Chadbourn rev. ed.1976).

Banks v. State, 790 So. 2d 1094, 1097-98 (Fla.2001).

Reference

LOL, I'm not sure if this definition clarifies the issue or clouds it even more.

29 posted on 03/25/2005 1:04:04 PM PST by Tarantulas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
At least one person testified that she would like to be kept alive based on statements made when discussing Karen Quinlan, as I understand it.

And the judge discounted that testimony because he just knew Miss Quinlan died in 1976 which was before the testified discussion. And when this solon learned last week that well she didn't die until after the discussion, he just said "sorry, no big deal."

30 posted on 03/25/2005 1:04:20 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk

As far as I am concerned its hearsay. The only question is if it fits into an excepion to the hearsay rule.


31 posted on 03/25/2005 1:04:41 PM PST by Lawdoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk
I am not convinced this is not hearsay, without being to research it further.

Ah, but Michael and his lawyer are MUCH TRICKIER than that, and you don't think they figured that out?

Here's what Michael testified: he and Terri were watching a movie, and she said that she wouldn't want to go through what the character in the movie went through.

So it was not a direct assertion of her wishes -- it was an indirect reflection of her state-of-mind based on her experience of watching the movie.

Providing just enough indirection to avoid the heresay objection -- and just enough proof to provide idiot Judge Greer to reach the conclusion he did.

An artful dodge, if I must say so, but not so diffucult for a psychopathological husband.

32 posted on 03/25/2005 1:04:55 PM PST by WL-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lawdoc

If the law on even hearsay is this clouded, it's no wonder criminals walk every day on technicalities.


33 posted on 03/25/2005 1:06:16 PM PST by conservativebabe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: conservativebabe

Plenty of witnesses testified to the contrary, but Judge Greer didn't like what they had to say, so he disregarded them.


34 posted on 03/25/2005 1:06:22 PM PST by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
Strictly speaking I would say that Shiavo's statement is in fact hearsay. Here is the definition for hearsay used in Federal Courts:

"Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."

I don't know how you can get around the definition here.

Dershowitz may be referring to a rule of procedure used in certain guardianship hearings...I don't know. And of course the hearsay rule has all sorts of exceptions. Of course, from my point of view (haven't studied it extensively) I don't see any that apply in this circumstance. Sounds like hearsay to me. And it would be considered hearsay in a federal court.
35 posted on 03/25/2005 1:07:06 PM PST by mandatum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich

Let me try to clear this up . . . A statement is an act if a liberal wants it to be an act. Otherwise it's just a statement.


36 posted on 03/25/2005 1:08:44 PM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

[Well, nobody is "killing a disabled person"...so that brings us to the flip-side question for you:

And why are "no witnesses" sufficient (to many people, at least) to deny someone of her rights?]

Are we all talking about the same case here? Terri IS diabled and Michael's statemtents were refuted by others. (I guess their testimony was hearsay, alledgedly)


Get in tha game, dude.


37 posted on 03/25/2005 1:09:57 PM PST by truthseeker2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: WL-law

Good points. I thought the context of her alleged statement is that she wouldn't want to be kept alive if in the state of one of her grandparents, who I think was terminal and being kept alive by other means, not food and water.

I hadn't heard about the movie. I don't believe it. Especially when she told her friend that Karen Quinlan shouldn't have been allowed to die because "where there's life, there's hope". That statement is far more weighty and on point than some supposed movie.

Judge Greer and M. Shiavo have tag-teamed to kill Terri, that is clear.


38 posted on 03/25/2005 1:10:16 PM PST by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lawdoc

Yeah, and I haven't found it.

Check out WL-law's posts on this thread.


39 posted on 03/25/2005 1:11:01 PM PST by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TheDon

" I guess that depends on what the definition of hearsay is."

Traditionally, hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. So if we are asserting that Terri would want to be unplugged, and someone says, "Well, I heard her say once that if she were in a coma, she would want to be "unplugged"", then that is a hearsay statement.

There are some exceptions to the hearsay rules (a "verbal act") being one of them, but I can't think of any that would readily apply to this situation...except maybe the one where the declarant is "unavailable."


40 posted on 03/25/2005 1:12:44 PM PST by Altamira (Get the UN out of the US, and the US out of the UN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-195 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