Text 11194, 66 rader
Skriven 2005-04-09 01:17:51 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
  Kommentar till text 11166 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
Hey, EARL.

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

 EC> But the testimony was not "hearsay" in the sense you mean.  Let's say
 EC> that you say OJ kill someone with a knife.  You later tell me that you
 EC> witnessed it.  If he goes to trial, you can be called as a witness
 EC> based on what you say.  But I cannot testify as to what you saw.  Why?
 EC> You might have been mistaken.  You might have been lying to me.

Did her words to these third parties constitute a legal declaration or was 
it merely passing the time of day.  It seems that these people's testimony 
as to what she really desired right now leaves a lot to be desired.  Who 
knows, she might have just been going along with the consensus of that group 
of conversationalists.  Did she state to these people that her words were to 
be remembered and that the report of her words were to be taken in lieu of a 
written declaration because she just didn't have time to write such a 
declaration?

 EC> In the matter of the hearing on Terri Schiavo's wishes, as best I can
 EC> tell from the stories on it, there was no hearsay evidence.  No one
 EC> passed on any second-hand testimony of her intent (such as someone
 EC> saying "I never met her, but a friend of mine said that she heard Terri
 EC> once say ____").

Nah, you are distancing it to double hear-say.  A report on a report of her 
words.

 EC>  Her oral declaration, like the hypothetical murder by OJ, WAS the
 EC> matter in question.

No.  Her current wish should be the matter in question.

 EC> The witnesses were first-hand eye (ear) witnesses.

I can hear them now, "She said to me that..."

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

 EC> That's why the judge put far greater weight on what she said as an
 EC> adult as opposed to things she might have said when she was 10 or 11
 EC> years old.

That seems pretty weak.  Why not say that we didn't consider her desires as 
she first began to speak.  Different degree, but same flaw.

 EC>  But the objection you are outlining would apply to any living will,
 EC> including written ones.

True.  At least a written will is done on purpose with the intent that it 
will speak for you at some subsequent date.  If one changes one's mind, one 
can modify the words on the paper too and one knows where and what to 
change.  Her comments to these third parties were considered binding by her, 
do you think?

--- Fidolook Lite FTN stub 
 * Origin: Procrastinate NOW, don't put it off for tomorro (1:379/1.6)