Replies

Terri's family has had the benefit of excellent legal representation

Ms. Campbell, the attorney for Terri’s parents in her opening statement she praised Mr. Felos’ opening statement:

Pg.16

20 MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Felos has already
21 very eloquently and accurately set forth a lot of
22 the history in this case going over the dates and
23 times of the testimony dictated here in the next
24 week. Our differences where we come is as to what
25 the Court will find and also the credibility of
Pg.17
1 the witnesses.

Later in her opening, Ms. Campbell actually admitted the second crucial issue of the case:

Pg.17

12 …We do not
13 doubt she's in a permanent vegetative state.

Mr. Felos did a masterful job of trying the case. During his direct examination of Michael Schiavo for the purpose of establishing a foundation for the later testimony of Michael’s brother, Felos asked about a conversation that took place at Michael’s grandmother’s funeral. This was Michael’s response:

Pg.23

4 …I vaguely remember a conversation that
5 happened, but my brother, Scott, had the
6 conversation. He would know better about the
7 conversation.

Later in the direct examination Michael recounted a conversation he allegedly had with Terri while on a train. They had decided to move to Florida for the warm weather. Terri was supposedly concerned about her grandmother who was ill. Referring to the possibility that her grandmother might be disabled and not be able to care for her son, Michael testified to a statement that Terri allegedly made while they were traveling on the train:

31
1 …She says, "If I ever have to be a burden
2 to anybody, I don't want to live like that."

Michael testified that while watching television, he could not relate any specific time or place, but Terri allegedly again expressed her desire not to be maintained on life support system.

Ms. Campbell did not object to the following testimony although Mr. Felos failed to qualify Michael as an expert witness:

Pg.39

21 Q What is Terri's condition as a result of
22 the incident that occurred on February 25, 1990?
23 A She's in a chronic vegetative state
24 anoxic encephalopathy due to cardiac arrest.

Despite the fact that Michael had taking a course in a community college in respiratory therapy, he was not called as an expert witness. He testimony in this regard was incompetent. Nevertheless, since there was no jury present, presumably Judge Greer did not consider this testimony in reaching his final decision. This exchange between Felos and Michael was followed by a long list of leading questions, and while arguably they were harmless, they were technically improper and Ms. Campbell raised no objections to them.

What followed next was several pages of testimony by Michael that was legally incompetent since he gave medical opinions which should only be permitted for an expert who has been qualified by the judge. Even though Mr. Campbell did not object it is surprising that Judge Greer allowed the testimony. What followed was this exchange:

Pg.45

21 Q Do you know of any treatment method or
22 drug or thing that can be done which will improve
23 Terri's condition?
24 A No. I don't.
25 Q Has any doctor informed you there is any
Pg.46
1 treatment method, drug, or thing that can be done
2 to improve Terri's condition?
3 A No.

Not only did the forgoing exchange between Felo and Michael constitute inadmissible testimony because Michael is not an expert witness, but Ms. Campbell failed to object to the hearsay that no doctors informed Michael about treatment options. If the statement is being offered to prove that in fact there were no other options, the statement is incompetent, objectionable on the grounds that the statement is an out of court statement made by a witness or witnesses who were not under oath and not subject to cross examination. This is a classical example of simple hearsay and this testimony should not have been admitted into evidence.

In her cross examination of Michael Ms. Campbell challenged him on the actual date of the trip to Florida in which Terri allegedly made a statement about not wanting to be on life support, but the dates remained unresolved. Apparently the reason Ms. Campbell raised the issue is to discredit Michael’s testimony. Michael and Terri were living in her parents condominium but the lease was in Michael’s name. What Ms. Campbell hoped to gain by asking Michael why the lease was in his name is not clear, but the first rule of cross examination is not to ask a question if you do not know the answer and have proof to rebut any misstatement of fact. Incredibly when Mr. Campbell asked why the lease was in Michael’s name this was the answer:

Pg.83

6 A Because Mr. and Mrs. Schindler went
7 bankrupt and they could not get credit.

Ms. Campbell in her opening statement promised the judge that she would show that Michael’s testimony would be tainted by a conflict of interest because of his desire to inherit Terri’s money. Not only does it appear that apparently Ms. Campbell did not expect the answer, but the suggestion that Terri’s parents could not get credit and were participating in a scheme was left unexplained. If in fact as Michael testified, he signed the lease under false pretences, Ms. Campbell did not explore that avenue.