[RGSpincich]

Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard.

[truthseeker2]

Part of OJ's Dream Team??

[Dr. Frank fan]

Ok, he is an eyewitness to the statement so it's not "hearsay". Fair enough.

But you need two witnesses to prosecute for treason (a capital crime). Why is one witness good enough to kill a disabled person?

[kingattax]

dershowitz is an annoying p*ssant

[TheDon]

Hearsay

1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.

2. Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

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

[WL-law]

No, it's not hearsay, but it's from an impeachable and interest-conflicted witness.

[cripplecreek]

Well when the almighty Dershowitz decides to come down off mount Olympus he might be worth listening to. Until then he's just spouting the same ole one sided garbage as he always spouts.


You should ask yourself why he isn't required to tell the truth. It lies in an 1895 supreme court ruling that keeps him and others like him powerful.

ttp://www.caught.net/juror.htm

[ex 98C MI Dude]

Funny, but didn't the Baron Lord High Executioner and Judge Greer say that the testimony of her friends was heresay, not a verbal act?

I would not allow Dershowitz to defend my dog if it was accused of plagiarizing the complete works of Shakespeare, let alone take his word on an issue of life or death.

[conservative cat]

Someone on FR (I wish I remembered who so I could credit) asked what if Terri ever told someone she would divorce her husband if he cheated on her? Would that be admitted in court as evidence of her wishes??

[conservativebabe]

So if a husband says monkeys flew out of his wife's butt, it's a fact because he was a witness to it.

[the OlLine Rebel]

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." Funny how he says it's not mere hearsay then uses the word "allegedly".

[concerned about politics]

But Florida has said essentially that a statement made to a spouse and repeated in court may be enough.

I'll bet Florida would say just the opposite if the parents said they wanted her dead and the husband wanted her to live. When it comes to pro-death, who ever chooses death wins.
Florida has a lot of old people. If they were kept alive "too long", it would suck up monies that could be used for "the great collective" (The Democrat base. They want people to buy them stuff, dammit!)

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

But he has motive to lie. What if the issue were about property that the disabled or a deceased supposedly wanted to gift to a person, and that happens to be THE person sharing the testimony? I just think that's weak.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Besides, Dershowitz wants her to die.

[Defiant]

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.

[Tarantulas]

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.

[mandatum]

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.

[LibWhacker]

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.

[rockrr]

We'll have to see what Judge Judy has to say.....

[QQQQQ]

The rest of Dershowitz's statement: "And he is not describing something that is hearsay. He is an eyewitness to that statement. Now, I still think it‘s a thin read personally on which to take a life in the face of what ought to be a very, very strong presumption of life, instead of death. But the two issues here are, one, is Florida right or wrong? I think it‘s wrong. Second, does it have the power under federalism to make that mistake, and do the federal courts have the right to intervene?" He changed his mind since a few days ago, when I saw him on FoxNews, at that time he said there is more than reasonable doubt about Michael's statement about what his wife said. Also -- why isn't anyone asking about the FACT, that when MS was suing the doctors for malpractice, he was doing it on the basis that Terri will live out her full life expectancy, and AFTER he got the money, he suddenly "remembered" that Terri "didn't want to live this way".

[WL-law]

For those who would like to see Dershowitz skewered: take a look at post #17, which I posted on a discussion earlier this week:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368423/posts

It's a long read, but a brilliant example of a non-lawyer/academician totally besting Dershowitz in a brilliant display of (a) preparation and (b) cross-examination skills.