Let's get ONE THING STRAIGHT about this hearsay crap

There are NUMEROUS legal exceptions to the hearsay rule.

One of them is when the person (witness) is UNABLE to testify due to death or infirmity.

Another COMMON exception to the hearsay rule is expert witness testimony.

I am only saying this since many DU'ers seem to think some legal exception is made in this case to the concept of the admissibility of hearsay.
Under federal court guidelines, there are approximately 37 exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Florida's guidelines may vary but not by much.
YOur truly...just trying to stop the propaganda.

Ive heard Schivaos family has gotten turned down over 20 times, and about 10 by the supreme court. Doesnt the SC get pissed they have to do the same case a million times in "emergency" situaions when they would normally be out of court. And now people are trying to kill the judges, republicans are real down to kill if some one else may be killed.

As far as them getting pissed. I would imagine they get pissed at frivilous non meritorious appeals, but by the SAME TOKEN...where a judge has ventured outside the confines of the law, one would HOPE a case would be appealed. The purpose of an appeal is to demonstrate that a LEGAL ERROR was made that affected the outcome of a case.

In this case, it has now been determined 2 dozen times that no legal error was made.

Those claiming that Michael did this and Michael did that should read the ORIGINAL opinion of Judge Greer.

He had problems with BOTH sides in this argument, but nevertheless felt he had sufficient information to do what the law required him to do which was to discern what Terri Schiavo would want.

It didn't help that her mother IMPEACHED herself by claiming that at the age of 20, Terri told her she would want to live when discussing Karen Ann Quinlan. It turned out that discussion ACTUALLY took place when Terri was 11 or 12.

Whether they get pissed about going back to work or not is not a matter of concern. That's what they are paod for.

Their opinions on the matters of law are in writing and a matter of public record for all to see.

...by people with some grasp of the legal process, the definition of hearsay that's being thrown around right now would disqualify ALL verbal communication that occured outside the courtroom from admission into evidence.

And that's just fucking stupid.

Edit: typo.

http://abstractappeal.com/

scroll down a little ways. They've added a very good explanation of the hearsay rule. Keep in mind that as to the issue of whether Terri said certain things (not whether she meant what she said), the testimony of Michael and others was NOT hearsay since the credibility of the witness as to whether they heard Terri say something could be (and was) assessed in court. While technically, the use of Terri's words to establish whether she actually meant was she said is hearsay, but accepting "hearsay" in this instance clearly was proper.

onenote

and we were divvying up her will.

so you can't expect 'em to know (much less understand the reasons behind) the exceptions.

A very basic, black letter definition might be "an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted."

Some of what people loosely term hearsay isn't hearsay at all- and so may be admissible even without falling under an exception!

to the legal basis.

They do the same thing with medical terms.