Text 11166, 50 rader
Skriven 2005-04-08 18:46:46 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
     Kommentar till en text av ED CONNELL
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
-> 1.  Back when I used to read Perry Mason. (Yes children, there was an author

-> named Earl Stanley Gardener who wrote actual Perry Mason books and I read 
-> them all.) courts used to throw out hear-say evidence - or another way of 
-> saying that is that hear-say testimony was not considered valid evidence. 
-> Obviously we have a different standard now.

Since the Florida law specifically allows oral declarations as to one's
wishes, it would not be possible to throw out all testimony as to her
oral declarations.

But the testimony was not "hearsay" in the sense you mean.  Let's say
that you say OJ kill someone with a knife.  You later tell me that you
witnessed it.  If he goes to trial, you can be called as a witness based
on what you say.  But I cannot testify as to what you saw.  Why?  You
might have been mistaken.  You might have been lying to me.  The defense
attorney would get to cross-examine you if you testified.  The defense
could test your memory, your eyesight, your ability to recognize OJ on
sight, your honesty, your interest in him getting convicted, and so on.
But if the testimony comes in second-hand from ME, and you aren't there,
the defense cannot do any of that.

In the matter of the hearing on Terri Schiavo's wishes, as best I can
tell from the stories on it, there was no hearsay evidence.  No one
passed on any second-hand testimony of her intent (such as someone
saying "I never met her, but a friend of mine said that she heard Terri
once say ____").  Her oral declaration, like the hypothetical murder by
OJ, WAS the matter in question.  The witnesses were first-hand eye (ear)
witnesses.  It would have been hearsay testimony if someone had
testified "Terri told me she didn't have an eating disorder."  Again,
she might have been wrong.  She might have been denying her problem.
And so on.

-> 2.  Let's say that one day, this woman thought that she wouldn't like 
-> certain things and talked about it to someone.  But suppose, the next day, 
-> her solutions were different.  Sometimes even I change my mind.  Women are 
-> notorious for changing their minds.  So, since she changed her mind, she 
-> never did sign the forms.  So how does this judge know what she wants now? 
-> It seems to me that her more current wishes are more important than what she

-> mentioned to someone years ago.

That's why the judge put far greater weight on what she said as an adult
as opposed to things she might have said when she was 10 or 11 years
old.  But the objection you are outlining would apply to any living
will, including written ones.


--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)