quote:

---

>Not every statement relayed by another witness is hearsay. Hearsay if it is
>used merely to prove the statement was made, and not the truth of the matter
>asserted, it is not hearsay.
>
>the evidence code in Florida is found at chapter 90, Florida Statutes.
>Hearsay begins at 90.801, specifically 90.801(c) "'Hearsay' is a statement,
>other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or
>hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."
>
>http://tinyurl.com/6wwoh
>
>I also suggest the "bible" of Florida evidence, Erhardt on Evidence.
>
>To make a long story short, there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay
>rule, depending on whether the declarant is available or unavailable and by
>legislative fiat, even the statements that would be considered hearsay may
>be considered not to be hearsay because the legislature says they are not
>hearsay. "Hearsay" is actually one of the most complex areas of evidence.
>It is one which takes weeks in law school to garner a reasonable grasp of
>it's complexities and a life time to actually master (due to the exceptions
>and exceptions to the exceptions). It is unfortunately, one which all to
>often laypeople decide they are competent to make a determination whether
>something is hearsay (and whether it falls under an excpetion) based upon
>watching "Matlock" and without an appreciation of the nuances involved.
>Lawyers run into this problem when speaking to or deposing witnesses who
>don't tell us information they have because they believe it is hearsay. It
>is now part of my routine pre-deposition speech to tell the witness not to
>worry about the rules of evidence in the deposition, the lawyers will work
>that out later.
>
>The trier of fact (in this case the probate judge) determined that the
>evidence standard of "clear and convincing" was met. Appellate courts from
>the Florida DCA level to the US Supremes were given a chance to review the
>evidence and set aside that finding. None have done so. In part, the
>decision was apparently made on the basis of the husband's testimony as well
>as at least two other witnesses to Terri's statements (after attending
>funerals of loved ones who had been chronically ill for years) that she
>would never want to be kept alive that way.
>
>I've previously posted the link to the Guardian Ad Litem's report setting
>forth the factual history. As before, a few significant facts are that in
>the entire time, Terri did not develop a single decubitus ulcer (bedsore).
>This is unheard of. Also, the nursing home became so frustrated with the
>husband's constantly riding their XXX about her care that they actually
>(unsuccessfully) sought an injunction against him.
>
>I too have asked the question; "why did the husband continue to fight?"
>Reportedly he has a new life with a new woman and children of that union.
>It would be simple to divorce Terri in Florida (Florida has no-fault
>divorce). He was offered approximately one million dollars on one
>occassion, and ten million dollars on another to do just that and turn her
>care over to her parents. It doesn't make sense then that he sought her
>death because she was too much of a burden, because he has a new woman in
>his life, or because he wants Terri's money. (BTW, he would be entitled to
>half the marital assests anyway under Florida law). It has been postulated
>he was trying to cover up his abuse of her, yet he has agreed (in fact,
>requested) an autopsy by the county medical examiner. He also still fought
>her parents on whether she should be cremated or buried (purportedly her
>wishes were to be cremated - on the same occassions that she expressed her
>desire to not be kept alive in that state, returning from a funeral, she
>allegedly stated she did not want to be put in the ground with worms - a not
>uncommon decision). The conclusion that I have reached is that the claims
>that he has some nefarious intention do not hold water. Every argument that
>I have seen regarding that simply is refuted by the evidence. I have
>reached the conclusion that he fought these battles because he genuinely
>believed that is what Terri wanted and that he was complying with her
>wishes. As I've said before; would that someone would love me that much
>when my time comes.
>
>Some agree with the decision of the courts. Some do not. That is the way
>it always is. If you don't like the law, you have legislators that you can
>ask to change it. The law was applied in this case. Evidence was heard and
>considered, the trier of fact made a decision based on the evidence and the
>applicable burden of proof (the burden of proof was on the husband and the
>level of proof was "clear and convincing"). Appellate courts reviewed that
>decision (the level of review was "abuse of discretion") and the decision
>upheld. Multiple rehearings were provided, multiple requests for TROs were
>heared, etc. The rules regarding successive hearings and appeals were
>ignored so as to give the parent's every opportunity. The hearings and
>legal actions went far beyond "full and fair."
>
>Once again, for anyone who actually cares what the evidence was, the last
>GAL's findings as well as other evidence can be located here. In reality,
>however, I seriously believe that those who scream the loudest will be the
>least likely to want to be inconvenienced by the facts.
>http://www.abstractappeal.com/ has a discussion of the Carla Iyer affidavit
>http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html for a good timeline and
>links to documents in the case.
>
>For those that at least care what the facts and applicable law are
>concerning this matter (and I suspect that as usual, that will not include
>those who scream the loudest) the original order of the trial court, stating
>the evidence reviewed by the trier of fact, issues regarding credibility of
>the witnesses, factual findings of the trier of fact, and the order of the
>court is found here http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
>and once again the report of the GAL appointed under "Terri's Law" to advise
>Governor Jeb Bush is here (and I highly recommend reading it)
>http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf
>
>
>The last paragraph of the standard jury instructions (read to the jury at
>the end of the case and just before they retire to consider their verdict)
>in Florida goes something like this...
>
>"Even if you do not agree with the law, you must apply it. For 200 years we
>have agreed to live by the law and the Constitution. No one of us has the
>right to violate rules we all share."
>
>Nothing is going to be able to change Stocky's mind (nor the parents). If a
>living will were found tomorrow, those that feel strongly about this would
>state it was forged. If the recently departed pope, Mother Theresa and the
>Southern Baptist and Assemblies of God deceased preachers of your choice
>were to appear in saintly raiment, stating that Terri was hanging out with
>them, they'd just finished attending a Richie Valen's concert, and Terrie
>wanted us all to know that removing the feeding tube was EXACTLY what she
>wanted and she just wanted to thank everyone, those that cared enough to
>remove the tube and set her free from the prison her body had become and
>those who cared enough to do what THEY believed was right and fight to keep
>her alive, it still would not change these folks minds.
>
>Just like OJ Simpson, just like Michael Jackson, just like Bruno Hauptman,
>Mumia what's-his-name, Sacco and Vanzetti, etc... those that are rational
>will always be drowned out by the irrational ones (and there are plenty of
>those on both sides of the issue).
>
>Personally, I may occasionally correct mis-statements of Florida law
>(including the evidence code) and procedure on this matter (I'll try not to,
>but sometimes the errors are so patent that they grate like fingernails on a
>blackboard and I find it hard to ignore them), but I will not bother to
>address facts any longer. The facts are ignored and will always be ignored
>by those who choose to ignore them. They were not ignored by the court, the
>trial judge had the opportunity to hear and observe the witnesses and
>therefore had the best opportunity to make whatever credibility
>determinations needed to be made. Just as in any case, there comes a point
>where the judgment stands and the matter is no longer subject for review.
>That point should have been reached the first time that cert was denied by
>the US Supreme Court. With any other case, it would have been. That point
>has certainly been reached now.
>
>
>
><Stockman91790@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1112722238.754444.11460@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>