Replies

Will Team Bush have full access to all the medical and court records or do they have to accept the previous rulings by Judge Greer as fact?

It depends on whose arguments are more compelling, using citations from past cases or legal statutes. The judge must rule based on the law; right now the Bush Team is questioning what Felos has submitted as "facts," calling it hearsay in the "instant case" (the constitutionality trial)because the Bush Team has never had an opportunity to actally try that to determine "ultimate fact" before a judge or jury. In other words, as nicmarlo said, it can be inferred the Bush Team is deeply suspicious of Greer's rulings and/or the testimony found to be "fact" in previous trials.

Thus the Bush Team is rightfully calling ALL the legal findings submitted by Felos "hearsay" because it comes into this case with Felos saying "it's true" and the Bush Team is saying "we want to hold that evidence to a standard of proof which would be admissible in a criminal proceeding because this is a matter of life and death." (in my own opinion.)

Of course it's easy to be cynical and assume Greer will rule against Bush's motions but he must follow the law and if the legal arguments are carefully written, I think Felos will have to provide any and all records the Bush Team is requesting.

Because Felos seeks to overturn a law, he must offer proof that the law is wrong. So far, his main arguments seem to be that it violates Terri's right to privacy and it violates the separation of powers.

I don't think he can succeed on either tactic because I think the right to life will outweigh the right to privacy in this particular case, where there is dispute about Terri's actual condition, her care, conflict of interest and no written directive.

Also I think as a matter of public policy, it is in the government's interest to intervene when the rights of a citizen, or class of citizens, to due process are at risk of being infringed by inequities in law. In other words, a "judicial execution" based on disputed hearsay evidence is not acceptable in a death penalty criminal trial and should not be acceptable in a civil trial either. The same standards of scrutiny should be afforded to evidence in Terri's case as are afforded to evidence submitted in trial of an accused killer.

Most notably, she had no guardian ad litem to protect her interests, much as a public defender must be appointed to someone on trial. A disinterested guardian ad litem would have strongly contested the hearsay comments submitted by MS, as proof of her wish to die. MS as her guardian was not sufficiently removed to question his own testimony or motives.