As a lay person I have always herd that "hear-say" was only for street
discussions.  Now "I hear, say" that a certain stupid judge is
allowing hear-say to be used to "murder" Terri. Yet a former nurse who
deposed and said that Michael the exicutioner, asked "isn't the bitch
dead yet"?, was prohibited from testifying. So Mr. Answerman, does a
judge have legal rite to through out sworn eywitness statemoney and
accept hear-say from a party who "may" have his own interest at heart?

If a judge gets it wrong, it could probably be grounds for appeal.

As I understand it, hearsay is usually just not admissible when the
actual person who is supposed to have made the statement is available
to give testimony.

When that person is not available, the court will usually allow it. 
For example, the words of a dying person (as testified by someone
present at that time) are usually admissible.

Another form of hearsay that is usually admissible is an admission
against interest, like when you tell your friends after an auto
accident that you are "way toasted" and they later repeat that in
court even though you are also present in court to testify as to what
you really said.  While this is technically hearsay, it is also
generally allowed by judges.

It's amazing that a court case can go on for years and some who get
bites of TV and read op-ed articles for a couple days are suddenly
experts on the legal nuances of the case.

I find this very intriguing Tough Love!  When do parents, once a child
is married, still have claim to that persons things?  Never.  It isn't
congenital bliss, its marital bliss. And what if Terri, told Michael,
"Look, don't ever leave me hooked up like Grandma was, I don't want to
linger, I'd want to die."

So this isn't "murder."  It is the parents and the So Called Right to
Life crowd that are using political persuasion to further their own
agenda.

Its a selfish motive!

I'm confused about the Terri Schiavo case (honestly).

I believe in the right to die (as in, "Pull the plug, don't use a
machine to keep me alive.")

But Terri is NOT being kept alive by any machine, is she?

Isn't she now dying of thirst because they removed her feeding tube? 
If this is true, then it's very cruel.  If I saw a dog suffering like
that, I'd shoot it.

Which is more cruel:  keeping Terri alive with a feeding tube, or
letting her slowly die of thirst?

I hope someone can assure us that Terri is not dying of thirst, and
that I've got it all wrong.

So Clint34, you insist onbeing spoonfed. If you re-examine your
statement, your entire argument is premised on the phrase "IF TERRI"
Double shame on you. Let me spoon-feed you with what you culd achieve
with "IF".  If you knew the winning number you would win the lottery,
if you were king you could "rule the world" if you were God, you would
know for sure if Terry realy said what this rogue husband represents
that she said. This is only a dificult case for experts, any fool
could tell that one never lets the "fox watch the Hen-House." Michael
has both decleared and undecleared agendas for wanting Terri dead.  If
the Greer Judge was not either venal or or stupid, he would have
issued a restrining order to keep Michael away from Terri.  A little
knowledge is certainly a very dangerous thing as you have
demonstrated.  You dont know that he spent the money that was won to
rehabilitate his wife  to win the right to kill her instead...there is
so much more that you need to know about this case before you opine.

HI RMBLER HERE IS SOMETHING EVEN MORE CONFUSING: If the argument is
against the feeding tube, why is the stupid judge stopping anyone from
feeding Terri by a baby bottle as one of her erstwhile nurses revealed
she was doing? This can only meen that the aim is only to kill her not
to have her eat on her own.

Hi willcode4food, thanks for the lesson on here-say,  Earlier I wrote
such an erudite response to your comment but my PC crashed and lost
it.
Here is the gist though.  You are correct about folk opining with just
enough knowledge to make them dangerous. I myself often wonder why the
masses is so easily duped by the often illogical talking points of
LIBERAL MEDIA.
If they listen to music all day they certainly are not equipped to
handle "nuanses" of any kind. I recall a quote that reads: "people
like to be told that they are thinking but not asked to think, so to
avoid having to really think for themselves, the masses mimmic the
snippets that filters in through the music.

Ok, here is some food for thougt: By admission against interest, I
take that to mean that whatever one is addmitting to must not afford
the addmitter any gain.
If that is the case then Michael's here-say should never be addmitted
because it is clear that he has an "ax to grind".  The way I se it,
there only two reasons, that could make this Greer character allow
Michael's hear-say but reject the nurses affadavits against him, would
be 1. stupidity or 2. michael agreed to share the loot with him.  I
guess you heard that that same judge sealed the finantial records of
how Mighael handeled the funds?

I stand by the following. Omit the last sentence in my first
paragraph.  You turned to assault me on an 'if statement' ignoring the
fact.  It is NOT congential bliss, it is marital bliss.  I stand
beside my first statement.

This is using ones selfish political motives at the risk of diginity of death.

So Clint34, your pride and joy is standing by your statements "come
hell or high water"?  Oh yes, you are in good company.  This judge
Greer guy, has the same approach, he stands by his decision no matter
which facts stare him in the face.
I almost forgot, Our Man Bill stood behind his story even after his
DNA was found all over the famous BLUE DRESS.

Lincoln is known to have said "my views shall remain my views only
until newer views prove to be truer views". Try it sometimes, it
builds character...

How ya doing Probono,  

Would you be by any chance thinking that the appeal would afford
justice if Terri is already dead?

Oh my, WillCode4Food, I just got confirmation for my suspicions about
a collusion bet Greer and Michael. It was just revealed that Michael's
lawyer contributed filthylucre to Greer as campaign funds.

Hit me again WillCode, I am still wiggling...

Hi Toughlover

Sorry, I was not aware of the Terri issue when I posted my comment ...
I live in the UK, never read newspapers nor watch tv, so I am a real
hermit.

However, you have brought the issue to life.

Good Luck, as always

Bryan

Hi Toughlover,

I'm figuring that the judge allowed Michael's testimony regarding
Terry's wishes because she is incapable of testifying on her own. 
When a person makes a statement but cannot later testify, a judge has
some leeway in allowing another to give hearsay evidence on their
behalf.  Whether that person is either incapable, unwilling, or
unavailable all must be weighed by the judge and, as probono-ga
pointed out, is subject to appeal and can be considered cause for
overturning a case or declaring a mistrial.

It seems you have concluded that the judge is either greedy or stupid.
 It is also possible that neither is the case.  There is a wide
diversity of well-grounded and rational viewpoints that are moral and
do not result in the same outcome.  Concluding that another's
viewpoints are based on stupidity or corruption seems simply a way to
avoid the hard work of presenting thoughtful critique.  Not that I am
disputing your point, but I prefer analysis that is more
thought-provoking than "liar liar pants on fire."

There are so many things that make no sense to me in this case. 
Conservative politicians want less government, yet enact laws to
govern a particular family?  Right-to-life conservatives are now
threatening to "punish" other conservatives for not doing enough;
short of breaking the law, what haven't they done?  Could go on, but
have misplaced my soapbox.

A case can be made by doctors that Terri was unknowing and unfeeling. 
If this is so, then common decencyh demanded that she be murdered
qwuickly. Denying her water while she shriveed away, was cruel and
inhuman punishment. We shoot horses, don't we?

Hi Will Code 4 Food, 
More food for thought.  I like your music, but I am having some
difficulty with your melody, as Barry Farber is wont to say. If you
were an Answer Man, I would award you five  stars, but the crux of my
contention eluded you it seems.  I am not blaiming the judge for
countenancing the HEARSAY of  the spouse, since you have convinced me
that there are rules governing the acceptance of same. I am just livid
that Judge Greer repressed every attempt to first qualify Michael as a
worthy gardian.  It is commonly known that if a child shows up at
school with some suspicious bruses, states will suspend gardianship of
parents until those bruses are thoroughly investigated.  In this case
Terri had numerous unexplained broken bones, and several of her
attending nurses swore to several actions and words from Michael that
ought to have disqualified him as gardian, had the wicked Judge not
ignored and suppressed these "facts".

Does it not make your blood boil to learn that this judge accepted a
campain donation from Michael's Lawyer.  Who can say that Michael did
not pay the lawyer extra to be passed on to the judge.  Wouldn't an
honerable judge have recused himself after doing such a questionable
thing?

My argument was never that Terri did not deserve the right to die.  I
just insist that NO ONE who has anything to gain or hide, should even
be allowed to visit her unaccompanied, much more to be allowed
gardianship.  This is the miscarrage of justice that this judge should
answer to the gongress for.  of course he should be tripple impeached.
 Ok you caught me red-handed, denouncing Michael and the judge before
I diligently confute their arguments.  If you saw a man punch a woman
to the floor, would you not be tempted to knock him out even before
you discover that she just poisonde his drink?

As I understand the case, Judge Greer allowed Michael to be appointed
as Terry's guardian in June of 1990 because he was her husband and
because no one objected.  Subsequently, Judge Greer allowed a petition
by the Schindlers requesting that the court remove Michael as
Guardian, but this proceeding concluded there was no basis for his
removal.

There is no civil proceeding to "qualify" a legal guardian so there
was no basis for Judge Greer to have done so.  Attempts to remove
Michael as legal guardian simply failed.  During the course of this
case, the court appointed at least three guardians ad litem.  While
one guardian, Mr. Pearse, did question Michael's motives, he failed to
ensure his arguments appeared free from bias and was discharged.  The
judge did not, in fact, suppress the question of broken bones and the
report of Dr. Walker as well as his testimony in court was a part of
the record in this case.

And while you may have not made the argument that Terry did not
deserve the right to die, the Schindler family it seems would not
agree with you.

"Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very
personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that
Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation,
deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family
voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any
and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting
agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract
diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would
agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed
with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional,
difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad
and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy
from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of
her environment given the persistent vegetative state. Within the
testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family
members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to
have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout
this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa
was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state."

[ http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm ]

I think most people would agree with your statement that those with
potentially biased views do not necessarily make the best guardians. 
In this case, that would include both Michael and the Schindlers. 
Some advocate that those in a condition such as Terri's, lacking a
written document as to her wishes, should have a permanent guardian ad
litem rather than a legal guardian.  Many would prefer a family member
make decisions for them rather than a stranger, no matter the outcome.

In any case, courts and judges don't get to decide what's right, they
only get to interpret the law.  Perhaps you are seeing the court as an
institution designed to find the best or most just course.  This is
noble, but misguided.  Courts are merely designed to adjudicate
matters in accordance with the law.  Judges constantly comment that
they wish they could rule (and sentence) differently than they must
but when the law is clear they are bound to uphold it, like it or not.