Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Flanders]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Not to take a side, but really how is anything she "said" to people admissible. It is just hearsay, right? Does it fit some Fla/ brain dead exception?

Not certain, may be a long shot but one might argue dying declaration, statement against interest, etc.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Blasphemer! Witch! RINO!

Emphasis on that last.

[Flanders]

Originally posted by chad87655
Mock away jerky boy. Obviously the ongoing liberal judge sanctioned murder of Terri Schiavo is a celebration of death and oppression by the elitist liberal ruling class. Terri is just the latest poster child that these ideological cretins use to celebrate an amoral philosophy of degeneracy and sadly that same amorality is trumpeted by the liberal mainstream media such that the sheeple of TVLand in the cultural wastelands of urban America will ignore the murder of the innocent because they are inured to it, much as the rank and file peasants of ancient Rome cheered the public deaths of thousands and German nation accompliced with Nazis to the slaughter of millions Jews. As for me, and other patriots, we refuse to stand down in the face of state sanctioned murder and oppression of the innocent and weakest amongst us, like the children of WACO or Elian or Terri. Pray.

Can Whittemore be impeached?

The elitist liberal ruling class? hmmm? The GOP pretty much rules the country right now, whom are you speaking of? The bad , evil, activist Judges, sworn to uphold the constitution and the law? Get a grip. You, a patriot? Hardly. Eric Rudolph also considered himself to be a patriot, and we see where that got him.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by chad87655
Well said brother, it is joyful to see a fellow believer posting the word here. For clarifying purposes, the reference to the 2000th year of our lord, was synonymous with 2000 A.D., the year in which the young Elian was kidnapped by the jackbooted Reno. The reference to anniversary of death meant easter weekend, as my bible studies place Jesus' death in April, 30 AD, based on the timing of Pesach that year and references to the last supper as a seder. I just pray that Terri can last long enough for Jeb to get the troops to her given that another liberal puke (a Clinton appointee) has hoisted the flag of the culture of death over her bed.

PTL!

God is dead. You evidently didn't get the memo. I'll forward it to you. You might want to review your distribution lists and make sure you're correctly copied as appropriate.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Not to take a side, but really how is anything she "said" to people admissible. It is just hearsay, right? Does it fit some Fla/ brain dead exception?

Any writing to that effect would be hearsay as well, in that it would be an out-of-court statement used to try to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein. The verbal/written issue goes to the reliability of the statements.

The answer to your question probably lies in FRE 803(3) -- creating a hearsay exemption for statements of the declarant's "then-existing state of mind (etc). . ." If not there, the residual exception under FRE 807.

There may also be statutory hearsay exemptions for written/notarized HCPOAs, because they are, after all, designed to speak for people who can no longer speak for themselves. There may also be some similar provision re verbal statements in Florida and/or other states where written proof is not required. The whole purpose of the inquiry is to find out what a person "would want" when they can't tell you.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Flanders
Not certain, may be a long shot but one might argue dying declaration, statement against interest, etc.

Neither of those really fit.

The dying declaration exception under FRE 804 applies to statements about what caused your injury/death. The statement against interest exception also doesn't seem to do it. After all, if it were true -- it would be a statement in her expressed interest. (That section also focuses on penal, pecuniary, liability interests.)

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Any writing to that effect would be hearsay as well, in that it would be an out-of-court statement used to try to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein. The verbal/written issue goes to the reliability of the statements.

The answer to your question probably lies in FRE 803(3) -- creating a hearsay exemption for statements of the declarant's "then-existing state of mind (etc). . ." If not there, the residual exception under FRE 807.

There may also be statutory hearsay exemptions for written/notarized HCPOAs, because they are, after all, designed to speak for people who can no longer speak for themselves. There may also be some similar provision re verbal statements in Florida and/or other states where written proof is not required. The whole purpose of the inquiry is to find out what a person "would want" when they can't tell you.

S_A_M

A proscribed governmental form would come under an exception. I guess I'm curious how any inquiry into what a person "would have wanted" can happen when no evidence is admissible. Maybe the inquiry itself was as flawed as the idea of Congress passing a law?

[Replaced_Texan]

Hot Tub Tom

"One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America," Mr. DeLay told a conference organized by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group. A recording of the event was provided by the advocacy organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

"This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," Mr. DeLay said."

Yeah, it's all about you, cocksucker.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Neither of those really fit.

The dying declaration exception under FRE 804 applies to statements about what caused your injury/death. The statement against interest exception also doesn't seem to do it. After all, if it were true -- it would be a statement in her expressed interest. (That section also focuses on penal, pecuniary, liability interests.)

S_A_M

From a report to Jeb Bush summarizing the case (italics mine.)

"In Theresa's case, evidence regarding her intentions consisted of admitted hearsay regarding conversations between Theresa and her spouse and spousal relatives. The context and nature of this hearsay were deemed sufficiently probative, competent and reliable to serve as a basis for admission, and was determined to be sufficiently clear and convincing. The court then served as proxy decision maker, essentially assuming the role of legal guardian. The privacy interests of the person, as established in the Florida Constitution, and as articulated with specificity in Browning (In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990) ) served as the legitimate legal bases for the court's conclusions to withdraw life support consistent with Florida Statute, 765. "


See here for the full text http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This dog won't hunt.

The Florida STATE legislature did get involved - and act - on behalf of Terri and her parents. Then the Florida judiciary intervened.

In this case, the Fed is acting in furtherance of the actions and will of the state. Not against.

That's an interesting take on federalism. It's okay to interfere with the rights of the several states to have a judicial branch, but Congress may lay waste to the checks and balances of our system when the "christian" right is offended. Thanks for this valuable insight.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Yeah, it's all about you, cocksucker.

Bottling up your true feelings can have serious long-term health consequences.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
I guess my problem here, similar to my problem with death penalty cases, goes deeper than, did we follow The Procedure. I'm not that impressed that we followed The Procedure when we are using The Procedure to justify killing someone. We can have seventy-two layers of appellate review followed by a voice vote among all nursing home residents throughout the country, and I still end up thinking that, if someone wants to maintain her care at private expense, why would we ever want to kill her off? The Procedure is a nice way of reassuring ourselves that we took all the right steps to ensure that this was one of the proper cases in which to kill someone, but, what if your essential premise is, we as a society shouldn't be killing the inoffensive? The Procedure is meaningless at that point.

The Procedure is always more important than a single life. People die. That's sad. It's also inevitable. You're willing to send thousands to die in Iraq for the sake of the Procedure. Why is it that you're also willing to allow it to be perverted at the highest levels for the sake of one woman?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by leagleaze
From a report to Jeb Bush summarizing the case (italics mine.)

"In Theresa's case, evidence regarding her intentions consisted of admitted hearsay regarding conversations between Theresa and her spouse and spousal relatives. The context and nature of this hearsay were deemed sufficiently probative, competent and reliable to serve as a basis for admission, and was determined to be sufficiently clear and convincing. The court then served as proxy decision maker, essentially assuming the role of legal guardian. The privacy interests of the person, as established in the Florida Constitution, and as articulated with specificity in Browning (In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990) ) served as the legitimate legal bases for the court's conclusions to withdraw life support consistent with Florida Statute, 765. "


See here for the full text http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

so it came in under a catch-all? most of those weigh against if the evidence would be highly prejudical- i.e. major damage if wrong.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You're willing to send thousands to die in Iraq for the sake of the Procedure.

I'm going to give you an opportunity to rethink this statement, because it's one of the most vacuous things I've read here for a bit, and that's not a particularly high threshold given the last few weeks.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm going to give you an opportunity to rethink this statement, because it's one of the most vacuous things I've read here for a bit, and that's not a particularly high threshold given the last few weeks.

True. Bush lied so the procedure was flawed from the outset.