It was legally hearsay. The [non-]application of the legal term "hearsay" in this case was like the application of the term "clear and convincing" by the Judge. Arbitrary, subjective and questionable.
It was legally hearsay. Not. MS testified that Terri said something, he testified to what he heard, he testified that he based certain of his own actions on what he heard. He did not testify as to the truth of her statement, so it's not testimonial.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7295732/
'Scarborough Country' for March 24
Alan 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. 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?