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?
What I think this argument comes down to is (a) people who think it's okay to kill someone who is handicapped because, in their opinions, that life is no longer worth living, and (b) people who understand that life is scared.
As in abortion, where there is an honest question of whether someone is a human being, viable, or alive or not, killing is not an option. You always, always err on the side of caution. Why? Because individual human lives are one of a kind, we are not dispensible, and because human life is sacred. There is a difference between denying a human being food and water and someone who is dying because their body can no longer process food and water. One is murder, the other is a natural process called dying.
That's all.
Terri however was not committing a contract. Her remark was offhand. In no sense did it carry the expectation or weight of a contract. It is mere hearsay.
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.
Doesn't it just plain suck when you jump on a thread, and you haven't read the backround? Forget about whether MS's statement was hearsay, or not. Instead focus on his testimony during the malpractice trial. You see, MS promised the jury that he would use the settlement to take care of Terri, and to provide therapy for her. After he received the monies, he suddenly remembered that she "didn't want to live like that". You're a smart guy, so can you figure it out?
One last thing. MS borrowed money from the Schindlers during the duration of that malpractice trial. He promised to pay it back. The Schindlers went into hock to help out MS and Terri. Imagine their shock and horror when MS gets the money and immediately seeks to kill his wife, their daughter. That money was for her care, not to pay off lawyers.
I have included the above portion for your information, since you probably haven't gotten around to reading any of the information available since 2003.
You thought the US map looked funny between Red and Blue States in the election....just wait until we divide up into Pink (same sex) States, Yellow(abortion) States, and Black(euthanasia) States.
Well hey..a person can just go live were they choose, eh?
Then all the Pink States can non-proliferated themselves from existence, the Yellow ones can do the same, and the Black ones can hold the honor of being labeled the US population "incinerators" for killing off all the disabled, mentally ill, old and infirmed.
Wouldn't America have a nice looking map then?