Replies

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.

If the issue is, however, whether she wanted to be killed...

I'll take a stab at it. As I understand the FL law regarding removal of nutrition and hydration, the issue is not "whether she wanted to die". It is "whether she STATED that she wanted to die". Semantics?? Maybe, but as it relates to this FL law, it is important. Why?? Because the FL law states that in the absence of a written directive, an ORAL STATEMENT of her wishes will suffice, if there is "Clear and Convincing" evidence that she in fact made such a statement. So the court has to determine if the VERBAL ACT occurred or not. So witnesses to such a VERBAL ACT are called, and these witnesses give testimony to whether they were eyewitness to this VERBAL ACT. So, if the question before is "Did she make a statement that she wished to die?" then witnesses may be called to testify that they witnessed her making such a statement. Conversely, witnesses may be called to testify that she made a statement to the contrary.

As an analogy, if the question before the court is did a defendent commit an ACT of murder, then witnesses to that ACT are allowed to testify that they witnessed the act of murder if such witnesses exist. A witness may NOT testify that another person told them they had witnessed the ACT. That would unquestionably be hearsay. In the same way, in the Schiavo trial, a witness would not be allowed to testify that someone else told them they witnessed the VERBAL ACT of Terri stating she would not want to be kept alive. That would be unquestionably hearsay as well. But testimony may be taken from someone who directly witnessed Terri (alledgedly) making such a comment.

That's the way I understand it. BTW, I don't believe Terri made such comments, and that the judge should have scrutinized more heavily the testimony of Scott and Joan Schiavo, since the Schiavo parents had had their feeding tubes withdrawn by Michael and Scott. That should have rendered testimony by ANY Schiavo as suspicious (IMHO).

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.

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.