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 dont want to be technical about it. But the statement is not hearsay. Let me tell you why. Its called in law a verbal act. That is, it is a statement allegedly made by Terri Schiavo simply testified to by her husband. Its 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 ...
I'm pretty sure the hearsay/verbal act standard is the same in both circuits. And FL law is also relevant, although it must comply with 14th Amendment (US Constitution) due process requirements.
Yes, but she was disbelieved by the Baron Lord High Executioner and Supreme Judge Greer. You see, it is really neat when you get to decide what evidence you want to admit into a civil trial. You get to direct the outcome. How cool is that! All you have to do is come up with a thinly veiled pretext for finding the person submitting the evidence 'not credible'.
By that reasoning, "shoot me if I ever get like that" could, theorhetically become justifiable right-to-die.
Actually in February, 2000 Greer ruled that he did not have to decide on Michael Schiavo's statements since he had the testimony of Scott Shiavo and Joan Shiavo. He found nothing unreliable in them and that they were not impeached on cross examination. He also heard from from an expert witness who said that their testimony was consistent with statements made by people of Terri's age group at the time and that Americans want to "try it for a while" but they do not wish to live with no hope of improvement. He then proceeded to discount any other testimony as non-reflective of what she would do. He considered the quality of marriage questions to be a collateral issue.
For those who continue to defend this judicial process I say beware.
The same reasoning applies to the the Schindler's witnesses to the contrary.
What this really boils down to is one side's she-said versus another side's she-said -- a few sentences in the span of a 26-year healthy existence, inspired by a sad movie and the death of a loved one.
Which of us can say that we've never made statements that we later reconsidered, never thinking, of course, that verbalizing a passing emotion in our youth would be our eventual sentence to death by starvation in our middle age?
I'm no lawyer, but if the burden of proof for such a weighty decision as life or death rests on some fleeting remarks made in emotional turmoil (rather than repeated, unemotional opinions repeated over the course of years), prudence should dictate that these do not constitute proof of a person's wishes, either way -- except of course, as apparently in this case -- the matter had been decided in Greer's mind and any statement allegedly made to confirm that opinion would do, while any alleged statements to the contrary would not.
I'm reminded of at least one death-row inmate who insisted he wanted to be executed, only to have his life prolonged through appeals by ACLU types determined to prove he didn't really mean what he said.
If the statement was made and witnessed by three people, then my question to you is... Why was the feeding tube put in at all? Her wishes should have been granted 15 years ago and not today even be an issue. If her husband knew of her wishes then, why did it take him 8 years to do something? The whole thing stinks, and yes, this country should be questioning its leaders and the courts. If a person wishes to not suffer, it should be at the onset of the problem, not 15 years after the fact!
I hope that helps.
Fl. law may allow hearsay, but it is still hearsay.
No...because what he is testifying to is -his- conversation with someone. Now if he testified that John Doe said Terri said she was speeding THAT would be hearsay.
This is not to say that all testimony is true and all hearsay is false. People do commit perjury. And hearsay may be accurate, but it's just not admissible in court.
Is it in fact the case that Shook testified in the orginal trial? Does Greer state why he dismissed her testimony?
But it was offered for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that she expressed her wish to die, not for some other reason, such as motive or intent of the person testifying. For example, you could testify that you shot Joe because he said he was going to shoot you. Joe's statement as told by you is hearsay, but it's not offered to prove that Joe in fact intended to shoot you. Rather, it's offered to show your motive in shooting Joe.
No, that would be double hearsay, hearsay within hearsay. The first example--Jane told me she was speeding--is hearsay.
I absolutely understand your argument, but off the top of my head, I don't recall if the Schindlers raised that issue as clearly as you stated it.
Btw, the Schindlers had an attorney who became burned out because of the emotional drain of this case, and she was not the best legal counsel in many state proceedings, especially in front of Judge Greer.
Felos is best known for winning Guardianship of Browning, a landmark case on the so-called "right" to refuse or have withdrawn unwanted medical treatment.Why is food and water considered "medical treatment"?
How does the use of a feeding tube to deliver it transform food and water into medical treatment?
According to Felos.
A self-described "agent" of God who champions death.
In his oddly titled book, Litigation as Spiritual Practice, describing his feeling on the eve of trying an ultimately successful (for him) tax case, Felos wrote:
I felt like an empty vessel, a vehicle through which Spirit does its own work. I felt deep gratitude for being endowed with the abilities that allow this work to be done through me. In a sense I lost, at least for that moment, a personal agenda. I became an agent and God was the principal. All I needed to do was permit the work to come through me.
IndisputableBUT--
Judge Greer has rested his final and immovable judgement to kill Terri on his ruling that Terri's wishes are being carried out thru the agency of her husband, Michael Schiavo.
Unfortunately, Greer himself has admitted that he committed a devastating mistake in coming to his conclusion--but he will not use his new discovery of his error to save Terri's life.
Rather--he now shoves his mistake back underwater and allows Terri's killing to continue.
Since all other judicial rulings have been made on the legal technicalities of the case and no Court whatsoever has done the novo or new examination of the facts--including the testimony that could save Terri's life--as required by Congress, Judge Greer's invalid foundation upon which he rests this case has never been challenged.
Judge Greer has ruled to eliminate eyewitness testimony that Terri, responding to TV coverage of the Karen Ann Quinlan unplugging , stated explicitly that she, Terri, would never want to be disconnected and hurried off to death.
Based on these verbal statements, Terri's wishes are being directly violated by Judge Greer's death decision.
Reversable error on the face of it.
The major argument on which Judge Greer's whole case rests is that plug-pulling fulfills Terri's wishes thru the agency of her husband.
Greer's admission of a wrongful ruling on Terri's wishes goes directly against--in fact, completely undercuts--the rationale for killing Terri.
We are on the brink of witnessing a true case of judicial homicide.
I've heard (don't quote me) that there was some change in Florida law that allowed this sort of testimony within that time frame.
Personally, I think it's oddly convenient that three people who aren't blood-related to Terri Schiavo (but are related to one another) have come up with this, and no one else has.
"I guess that depends on what the definition of hearsay is."
Yes it does. Try using a legal dictionary. ...exceptions.
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.