Skip to comments.Pamela A.M. Campbell, Esq. lost the Terri Schiavo trial.
Posted on 03/22/2005 7:21:11 PM PST by watchdog_writer
She reportedly was not paid a fee for representing Terri's parents. The tragedy is that she lost the trial, and once a case is tried and a decision on the merits is rendered, it is practically impossible to have the decision reversed on appeal. Appellate courts do not substitute their opinions about the credibility of the witnesses. So when Judge Greer found Michael's testimony credible, which is to say that Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive, no appellate court is going to say any differently. There are cases where trial error has such a substantial impact on the case that the appellate court will overturn the verdict of a jury because their decision was improperly influenced. The same is not true of a bench trial, which is where the judge decides, and there is no jury.
A a reading of the several cases that resulted in the final order to terminate Terris life, evidences some procedural defects. It may be Monday morning quarterbacking, but has anyone reported whether Ms. Campbell raised an argument prior to the trial on the merits that Terri's constitutional rights were being violated by not appointing an attorney to represent Terri's interest? Ms. Campbell was not representing Terri. In fact no lawyer has ever appared on behalf of Terri.
There were two crucial issues in the trial of Terri's case. The first is Terri's intent, which must be proven by a very difficult standard to meet - clear and convincing evidence. The second is whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state.
Although the controversy in the press, and in court at this time is that Terri is not in a vegetative state, incredibly Ms. Campbell in her opening statement conceded that point. Pg.17 , lines12-13 We do not doubt she's in a permanent vegetative state.
As to the second point this is the approach that Ms. Campbell took: 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
1 the witnesses.
Although many of the facts presented by Mr. Felos are in dispute now, there was no argument against them by Ms. Campbell at the time of the original trial.
Mr. Felos had a free hand in trying the case. During his direct examination of Michael Schiavo for the purpose of establishing a foundation for the later testimony of Michaels brother, Felos asked about a conversation that took place at Michaels grandmothers funeral. This was Michaels response: Pg.23
I vaguely remember a conversation that
5 happened, but my brother, Scott, had the
6 conversation. He would know better about the
Ms. Campbell did not require Mr. Felos to lay a foundation before eliciting testimony from Michael that his brother Scott had a conversation with someone.
Ms. Campbell raised no objections to any of Mr. Felos' questioning. Only a medically qualified expert can render a medical opinions, but when Michael testified to Terri's medical condition, Ms. Campbell did not object. 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.
Not only did the following exchange between Felo and Michael constitute inadmissible testimony because Michael is not an expert witness, and the questions were leading, but Ms. Campbell failed to object to hearsay when Michael testified that no doctors informed him about treatment options. If the statement is being offered to prove the fact that there were no other options, the statement is incompetent, objectionable on the grounds that the statement was made out of court, 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. Here is the 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
1 treatment method, drug, or thing that can be done
2 to improve Terri's condition?
3 A No.
What Ms. Campbell hoped to gain by asking Michael why a lease for Terri's parents' condominium 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 Michaels name this was the answer: Pg.83
6 A Because Mr. and Mrs. Schindler went
7 bankrupt and they could not get credit.
It is not surprising that Judge Greer had no problem rendering his decision to terminate Terri's life.
There may be a problem with the parent's lawyer. The certainly is a problem with Terry's. She never has had a lawyer.
She really hosed this case.
the conspiracy widens.
There is another thread, where I found that Felos was in 1998 and 1999 the Chairman of the Board of the Hospice of Florida Suncoast, Inc. [also a director]. This is the business that oversees Woodside.
So the fact that Felos became CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD may mean he could influence the doctors and other events in the trial.
There is another thread about all this and some very interesting facts.
Also, the sister of one of the County Commissioners was also on the board of directors. George Greer is a former Pinellas County Director.
I think there is dirt on these folks. And I hope the FBI has the brains to be able investigate this.
She doomed Terri's fate with labeling her a vegetable. THAT is all these Judges are looking at. Plus you have contrary testimony not allowed in so it's ONE SIDED. The judges are probably thinking all of us are demented wackos, feeling bad about the situation but not seeing any point in letting Terri continue. Now it makes sense.
As for their questioning it's ALL scripted. I was in law school and left when I became pregnant. Of course they can pursue a question further but it's all scripted for them. It's not rocket science.
That attorney convinced the Schindlers to concede that Terri was PVS, which she was not.
If you are corrupt, you just protect your rear-end by controlling enough people. That's what Racketteering is all about, and HOSPICE care can be billions of dollars in business. And if even people are killed in the right way, you can make lots of money.
The big difference this is health care and a fancy way to defraud the government.
But Felos isn't on trail!
It's about Terri!
We all know he is a sick *hit but he is not the one they are looking to make a decision on. If Ms. Campbell was a stripper on the side that would have NOTHING to do with her representing Terri's parents.
Wrong. Congress passed that law that the parents have the right of a de novo trial. That means that everything starts from scratch and everything must be proved again -- which is why Michael Schiavo is so mad.
If someone can get the feeding tube re-inserted, or if she can be taken away from that hospice and put in a hospital, it may be okay.
They way they posted things on the fight for Terri website, the Hospice may have just jerked out the feeding tube without a medical procedure.
That is correct, but there appears to be a money motivation of some sort or some sort of coverup. Why does Michael want the body cremated IMMEDIATELY after death.
I cannot convict Felos. But if it looks like there were criminal things done by Felos or Greer or Michael, they may re-insert the tube and straighten out this mess.
Just remember ENRON and how the higher ups were so corrupt. This may have happened at the Hospice.
How pathetically true!!
Meanwhile here in MA (The Gay State).... our corruption has "relocated" to FLA for up to 40 years or so... not to worry!!.... It's mostly politcal hacks, former lawyers and "Kennedy" Catholics. You should be safe down there if you're under 12 with NO inheritance...maybe
That's not true that that will happen. That was debunked.
That's not true that that will happen. That was debunked.
I mean the cremation.
I have NO doubt they are all corrupt but they aren't on trial. This stinks to high heaven but it's about Terri; not them.
But I think our next fight is for her not to be immediately cremated, hiding the evidence of abuse. We Catholics, don't get cremated.
This is where we really have to stop this monster of a husband. .
So... he's not having her cremated then? Then what about an autopsy to look for past blunt trauma, etc.?
What Congress passed said that this is de novo. What has been happening is that the Clinton appointed Judge saw no reason for the appeal based on previous evidence.
When he stated this, US Senator Rick Santorium was very upset, and stated that what Congress was that this giving Terri Schiavo case to be heard in Federal Court and to be heard de novo.
Basically, the judges are telling the legislative branch and executive branch that they can do whatever they want -- they are above the law.
I am trying to point facts that may bring about a fair re-trial If what I have found can make it to Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, and they have verify facts, along with the two nurses that have come forward, then Terri may be saved.
Only one of the Bush brothers have to take her into protective custody -- either at the Federal level or the State level.
But time is running short, and the parents are concerned about how the feeding tube was removed -- they fear it was not done as a medical or surgical procedure.
I wonder if they have only capped off the feeding tube vs. removed the feeding tube...
Yes congress passed the law and our judiciary chose to ignore it. They ignored the the " de novo' provision. Look it up!!!!
Did he give a reason for ignoring it?
I have been saying that the family has not had the best legal representation available in Fla. Fla. has terrific attys., i.e. Roy Black, etc. who is/are well respected within judiciary.
There was a reason Congress wanted a "re-do"!
Lots of liberal arts majors head off to Law School once they realize their degrees are worthless. The law schools are happy to take their money. The bar can be passed with a little coaching.
I have no idea how good a school Stetson is. That's where she went. Deland is a small town, Stetson's a small college. It can't turn out that many cutting edge attorney's. So put her up against a shark like Felos, and watch her get cut to shreds.
But gosh she's smart looking. Shoulda stayed in the lobbying biz...might have saved a woman's life.
>>We Catholics, don't get cremated.<<
That's true. If MS has had Terri's wishes at heart all along, he would know that and would never have her cremated. What is he hiding?
A bunch of broken bones, starting with the skull and neck fracture that started this.
See: Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 29 Fla. L. Weekly S 679
In the recent opinion of the Supreme Court in Campbell v. Government Employees Insurance Company, Fla., 306 So. 2d 525, that court reversed this court's setting aside of a judgment for excess liability, holding that this court was not at liberty to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of facts since there was evidence to support the judgment. It stated:
In analyzing these issues, we adhere to the well-settled principle that an appellate court will not disturb a final judgment if there is competent, substantial evidence[*25] to support the verdict on which the judgment rests. Indeed, it is not the function of this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact. See Castillo v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 854 So. 2d 1264, 1277 (Fla. 2003) ("It is a basic tenet of appellate review that appellate courts do not reevaluate the evidence and substitute their judgment for that of the jury."); Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So. 2d 932, 939 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 349 So. 2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 1977)) ("It is not the function of an appellate court to reevaluate the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the jury."); Grounds, 311 So. 2d at 168 (stating that an appellate court is not authorized to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.