Hearsay is what you or I say about the Schiavo case, not about Michael Schiavo. He was told it first-hand.Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: conjur
Fixed.Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Insomniak
Originally posted by: conjur
Judge issues smackdown to Congress and the President!
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628reh2.pdfI concur in the denial of rehearing en banc in this case because any further
action by our court or the district court, would be improper, as I explain below.
An axiom in the study of law is that ?hard facts make bad law.? The tragic
events that have afflicted Mrs. Schiavo and that have been compounded by the
resulting passionate inter-family struggle and media focus certainly qualify as
?hard facts.? And, while the members of her family and the members of Congress
have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for
dispassionate discharge of duty.
A popular epithet directed by some members of society, including some
members of Congress, toward the judiciary involves the denunciation of ?activist
judges.? Generally, the definition of an ?activist judge? is one who decides the
outcome of a controversy before him according to personal conviction, even one
sincerely held, as opposed to the dictates of the law as constrained by legal
precedent and, ultimately, our Constitution. In resolving the Schiavo controversy
it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and
executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at
odds with our Founding Fathers? blueprint for the governance of a free people ?
our Constitution. Since I have sworn, as have they, to uphold and defend that
Covenant, I must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing en
banc. I conclude that Pub. L.109-3 (?the Act?) is unconstitutional and, therefore,
this court and the district court are without jurisdiction in this case under that 1
special Act and should refuse to exercise any jurisdiction that we may otherwise
have in this case.
Awesome.
WooHooo, high 5-fives all around, a woman with less than half the normal brain tissue and no cerebral cortex who cannot ingest food and water normally is going to die because she would have wanted it that way! Time to break out the champagne! Let the celebration begin!
Besides, who died and made you her guardian?
Oh yeah...NO ONE!
hearsay
Information heard by one person about another. Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in a court of law because it is based on the reports of others rather than on the personal knowledge of a witness.
hearsay
Information heard by one person about another. Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in a court of law because it is based on the reports of others rather than on the personal knowledge of a witness.
That's not what Rush Hannity Coulter said.Originally posted by: HeaterCore
O.M.F.G....hearsay
Information heard by one person about another. Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in a court of law because it is based on the reports of others rather than on the personal knowledge of a witness.
Rip, do you even read what anybody else posts? IT'S NOT HEARSAY. GOT IT?
And where do you find that Florida law requires an autopsy prior to cremation? Florida does require an autopsy prior to cremation, but only in a set list of circumstances, none of which obtain here so far as I can tell. And no, the "suspicious circumstances" requirement isn't met here by any reasonable standard.
-HC-
It is hearsay, but the law makes exceptions to hearsay rule. I thnk many think of only second-hand statements as hearsay, but even first-hand statements qualify as hearsay too. In this case, the court found it to be an exception to the hearsay rule; hence, it was admissible. At the very least, this in of itself is an arguable subject.Originally posted by: HeaterCore
Originally posted by: DearQT
No, you misunderstand it. It is indeed hearsay especially in the case where the person alleged to have made the statement is not alive or is incapacitated to testify. Here are links for you to read: What is hearsay?
Hearsay Evidence. The court, however, is allowed to make exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Argh. If they were testifying as to their own experience, offering evidence that she in fact said certain things, then it's not hearsay. And anyway, under Florida law (which obviously doesn't matter a whit to a disturbing number of people) it's admissible regardless of how you characterize it.
From AbstractAppeal.com:
Courts generally employ rules of evidence during trials, and a well known rule of evidence holds that hearsay is admissible to prove something only in limited circumstances. Under Florida law, there are about 30 or so such circumstances. You could say that one of them applies here, such as the exception for statements describing the declarant's then-existing state of mind. You could also say that Terri's statements were not hearsay, since they were offered to prove she said those words, not to prove that what she said was true. Hearsay is an out of court assertion offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Those are evidentiary reasons why the testimony was admissible. There's a better reason. A constitutional reason. Terri had, and every Florida citizen has, a constitutional right to privacy that includes the right to decide that certain medical treatments should not be used to prolong her life. The Florida Supreme Court has clearly decided that this right can be exercised through written and oral statements.
In the landmark 1990 case In re Browning, Florida's high court explained that a surrogate attempting to determine what the ward would do can rely on the ward's written or oral statements. The court said:
"A surrogate must take great care in exercising the patient's right of privacy, and must be able to support that decision with clear and convincing evidence. Before exercising the incompetent's right to forego treatment, the surrogate must satisfy the following conditions:
1. The surrogate must be satisfied that the patient executed any document knowingly, willingly, and without undue influence, and that the evidence of the patient's oral declarations is reliable;
2. The surrogate must be assured that the patient does not have a reasonable probability of recovering competency so that the right could be exercised directly by the patient; and
3. The surrogate must take care to assure that any limitations or conditions expressed either orally or in the written declaration have been carefully considered and satisfied."
The court also explained how the surrogate may have to defend any decision regarding the ward's orally declared wishes from a challenge by another person interested in the ward's welfare:
"We emphasize, as did the district court, that courts are always open to adjudicate legitimate questions pertaining to the written or oral instructions. First, the surrogate or proxy may choose to present the question to the court for resolution. Second, interested parties may challenge the decision of the proxy or surrogate.
* * *
Although a surrogate may rely on oral statements made by the incompetent, while competent, to exercise the incompetent's wishes to forego life-sustaining treatment, the presumption of clear and convincing evidence that attaches to a written declaration does not attach to purely oral declarations. Oral evidence, considered alone, may constitute clear and convincing evidence. However, the surrogate would bear the burden of proof if a decision based on purely oral evidence is challenged.
Because the only issue before the court is a determination of the patient's wishes, challenges generally would be limited to that issue. For example, there may be challenges to claims that the declaration was not executed knowingly, willingly, and without undue influence; that the patient had changed his or her mind after executing the declaration; that the declaration was ambiguous; that the conditions or limitations contained in the declaration were not satisfied; that the surrogate or proxy was the one actually designated; and, of course, that there was a reasonable probability that the patient would regain competency. When the only evidence of intent is an oral declaration, the accuracy and reliability of the declarant's oral expression of intent also may be challenged."
(all emphasis added).
I quote these passages at length to show that the Florida Supreme Court has confirmed the ability of Florida citizens to use oral statements, not just written ones, to exercise their fundamental right to decline medical treatment. The rules of evidence help define how facts can be proved at trial, but they cannot be used to preclude the admission of statements that effectuate a fundamental constitutional right.
An assertion that the ward made a particular statement may certainly be challenged as unreliable -- that the ward never said it -- but there is no question that evidence of the ward's oral statements is admissible evidence, or that oral statements may constitute clear and convincing evidence. That's the law.
-HC-
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Insomniak
Originally posted by: conjur
Judge issues smackdown to Congress and the President!
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628reh2.pdfI concur in the denial of rehearing en banc in this case because any further
action by our court or the district court, would be improper, as I explain below.
An axiom in the study of law is that ?hard facts make bad law.? The tragic
events that have afflicted Mrs. Schiavo and that have been compounded by the
resulting passionate inter-family struggle and media focus certainly qualify as
?hard facts.? And, while the members of her family and the members of Congress
have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for
dispassionate discharge of duty.
A popular epithet directed by some members of society, including some
members of Congress, toward the judiciary involves the denunciation of ?activist
judges.? Generally, the definition of an ?activist judge? is one who decides the
outcome of a controversy before him according to personal conviction, even one
sincerely held, as opposed to the dictates of the law as constrained by legal
precedent and, ultimately, our Constitution. In resolving the Schiavo controversy
it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and
executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at
odds with our Founding Fathers? blueprint for the governance of a free people ?
our Constitution. Since I have sworn, as have they, to uphold and defend that
Covenant, I must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing en
banc. I conclude that Pub. L.109-3 (?the Act?) is unconstitutional and, therefore,
this court and the district court are without jurisdiction in this case under that 1
special Act and should refuse to exercise any jurisdiction that we may otherwise
have in this case.
Awesome.
WooHooo, high 5-fives all around, an innocent disabled woman is going to die! Time to break out the champagne! Let the celebration begin!
:disgust:
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Fyi. Michael Schiavo should be investigated. E-mail the Coroner's Office and insist on an autopsy so we can find out the truth.
If Terri ultimately dies, it is the publically stated intention of Michael Schiavo to have her immediately cremated. The Pinellas County Medical Examiner's office (District 6) would need to certify such cremation.
review the policy Link
The Medical Examiner should NOT do so if there is a question about the proximate cause of her death (or face adverse licensing action in Florida).
For future reference, though I hope it need not be used any time soon, the email for the Coroner's office is mailto:wpellan@co.pinellas.fl.us.
Should Terri die, everyone must immediately demand a waiver of certification for cremation and an investigation, including autopsy to determine proximate (and immediate) cause of death. Since Dr. Baden (forensic pathologist) believes the injuries are not consistent with Michael Schiavo's story, an autopsy would perhaps develop evidence that would put Michael Schiavo behind bars, and perhaps "retire" the miserable excuse of a judge, George Greer.
Link
MS has already odered an autopsy upon her death. Next baseless allegation....
BS. It turns out that in Florida an autopsy is required if the body is creamated.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The Terri Schiavo Story
Originally posted by: conehead433
She was already dead. May she rest in peace after she has passed away. I can't believe the number of people who want to prolong her agony. God rest her soul.
Originally posted by: conjur
May her family now finally move on and may the self-righteous go wallow in their self-pity.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I could be wrong, but my gut tells me that Terri is going to live.
I'm concerned about Frist's actions to engage the "nuclear option" in the Senate.Originally posted by: catnap1972
Originally posted by: conjur
May her family now finally move on and may the self-righteous go wallow in their self-pity.
Not likely...expect some more vicious and disgusting ranting and raving for at least the next couple of weeks.
Originally posted by: JoLLyRoGer
All esle aside. This Michel Shiavo guy is a class A P...R...I...C...K!
What kind of horses ASS wouldn't even the parents of their dying daughter be by her side in her final hours. Forget feeding tubes and all of the other BS.
That is just plain un-human and IMO this action alone proves that this man is lower than whale sh!t, and whale sh!t, my friends, is at the bottom of the ocean.
:disgust:
Originally posted by: JoLLyRoGer
All esle aside. This Michel Shiavo guy is a class A P...R...I...C...K!
What kind of horses ASS wouldn't even the parents of their dying daughter be by her side in her final hours. Forget feeding tubes and all of the other BS.
That is just plain un-human and IMO this action alone proves that this man is lower than whale sh!t, and whale sh!t, my friends, is at the bottom of the ocean.
:disgust: