Judge Greer explicitly concluded that he could not rule on Terri Schiavo's intentions based solely on her husband's testimony. He ruled, instead, that Michael Schiavo's testimony was corroborated by multiple other witnesses whose statements were consistent and reliable. The testimony related to statement made by Terri Schiavo to members of her family after the funeral of her husband's grandmother, who had been kept alive in her final days on artificial life support. According to several people who were present at the conversation, Terri said that she would not want to be kept alive on artificial life support. This evidence has been referred to derisively by conservative commentators as "hearsay," which is meant to make it seem unreliable and insubstantial.MS testified that Terri had expressed a desire not to live in such a condition. His testimony was corroborated by several other witnesses. The Schindlers, on the other hand, testified that they would not agree to follow Terri's wishes even if that was what she wanted.
Here a little legal background helps. According to the online legal dictionary at http://dictionary.law.com, "hearsay" is "second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her." (http://tinyurl.com/6earu) The idea is that you are testifying, not to what you saw, but to what someone else said they saw. Direct testimony would be "I saw Smith shoot Jones"; hearsay testimony would be "I heard Davis say he saw Smith shoot Jones." This is unreliable, since Davis is not testifying directly, so there is no way to judge the credibility of his alleged statement.
But that doesn't quite apply to this case, because the Schiavo relatives who testified about Terri's statements *did* directly observe the facts to which they were testifying: they directly heard Terri state her intentions about what she wanted to happen if she became permanently incapacitated.
"Judge Greer explicitly concluded that he could not rule on Terri Schiavo's intentions based solely on her husband's testimony."
Thanks for clarifying that portion.
"He ruled, instead, that Michael Schiavo's testimony was corroborated by multiple other witnesses whose statements were consistent and reliable."
As I recall, all of 2 - TWO - others. "Multiple" is meant to make it seem a legion of witnesses came forward. And just as many came from the other, if my memory is correct.
I am aware of the LEGAL definition of "hearsay", which is basically saying anything 3rd party or further constitutes it. However, the English definition includes the 2nd party, so in that manner, MS SAYING he HEARD this or that is NOT "direct". Direct, in English, comes straight from the horse's mouth - or in this case, Terri's. 1st-party evidence.
I know that doesn't matter in court, but in real life, it does. Even in criminal courts if you have nothing but several people claiming different stories tho they were all definitely "there" equally, as 2nd parties, the issue is still in question when their stories conflict (lie or just plain bad perception). In everyday life you can't believe every person who tells you he heard X - even if it's not a "lie", it could be poor hearing or poor interpretation of what was, really, Y.
Judge Greer explicitly concluded that he could not rule on Terri Schiavo's intentions based solely on her husband's testimony. He ruled, instead, that Michael Schiavo's testimony was corroborated by multiple other witnesses whose statements were consistent and reliable. The testimony related to statement made by Terri Schiavo to members of her family after the funeral of her husband's grandmother, who had been kept alive in her final days on artificial life support. According to several people who were present at the conversation, Terri said that she would not want to be kept alive on artificial life support. This evidence has been referred to derisively by conservative commentators as "hearsay," which is meant to make it seem unreliable and insubstantial.
May I ask, from where did this come? It hits a nail squarely upon its head.