Replies

JW: I just read the Wolfosn report again. He refers to the testimony of MS and his buds as, you guessed it, hearsay.

PM: hear·say ... Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness

Here's a little lesson on hearsay. "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (FRE 801(c)) Generally, hearsay is not admissible. However, there are a number of exceptions where hearsay is admissible.

Here are a few exceptions: dying declarations, excited utterances, res gestae or present sense expression, admissions and declarations against interest, and state of mind and physical condition. There are many others. Then many jurisdictions (including the federal rules) use a 'catch-all' or residual exception for the unavailability of a witness.

Thus, Wolfson could accurately describe the testimony of witnesses recounting Terri's many expressions of her desire not to be kept alive artificially as 'hearsay'. However, even if such recounting of Terri's out-of-court statements were deemed to be offered for the 'truth of the matter asserted', it falls within either (i)the present sense exception, (ii) the state of mind exception, or (iii) in any event the residual (unavailability of the witness) exception.

When as here the critical question for the court is the desire and intention of the unavailable witness (Terri) as to whether or not she wished to be kept 'alive' artificially, the trier of fact would be deprived of critical evidence were it not included. Some would argue that statements of purpose or intention are not hearsay at all since they are not statements of fact but merely intention (i.e. 'Boy, if I were ever in that shape, I certainly would not want to be kept alive by tubes.').

Whether one regards such statements as non-hearsay or hearsay admissible pursuant to an exception, all courts (including the federal courts) would find them admissible. That is why accounts of Terri's statements about not wanting to be kept artificially 'alive' were properly admitted into evidence.

I know exactly what "hearsay" is. If you ain't got a piece of paper with a signature and notarization as proof, how do I know you aren't a liar?

"That is why accounts of Terri's statements about not wanting to be kept artificially 'alive' were properly admitted into evidence."

Really, who else made that statement besides Michael? And why were parents' statements to the contrary ignored?

Which of them is lying? And how do you know?