| Member Opinion | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 84.0% |  |
4,628 |
| No | 9.8% | |
538 |
| Pass | 3.6% | |
201 |
| Undecided | 2.5% | |
140 |
| 99.9% | 5,507 | ||
Posted on 05/02/2005 5:06:09 AM PDT by Quaker
NEW PORT RICHEY - Pinellas- Pasco Circuit Judge George Greer, who was thrust into the national spotlight and scrutinized by pro-life advocates during the Terri Schiavo case, was a consistent judge who followed the law, colleagues say.
His professionalism and integrity was punctuated by the way he handled the Schiavo case, said Alan Scott Miller, a New Port Richey lawyer and member of the West Pasco Bar Association.
As part of Law Week, which kicks off today, the association will award Greer, 63, its Special Justice Award.
``He's getting this award for all of his contributions on the bench, not just the Schiavo case,'' Miller said. ``It's like a lifetime achievement award for an actor.''
Greer will receive the award during a banquet Thursday at the Heritage Springs Golf and Country Club, 11345 Robert Trent Jones Parkway.
For years, Greer presided over the politically and emotionally charged Schiavo case, which ended when the 41- year-old woman died March 31, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed a third time on a court order.
Some doctors said Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state since suffering brain damage after her heart stopped in 1990.
Her husband, Michael, fought for years to have her feeding stopped, saying his wife didn't want to be kept alive by artificial means.
Her parents, hoping she would recover, fought him in court after court.
Eventually, Florida's governor and Legislature and then Congress took up the battle.
Supporters and detractors watched as Greer made rulings backing Terri Schiavo's purported wishes and received threats on his life.
``I don't think anyone could ever say his decisions were unlawful,'' said Joan Nelson Hook, president of the West Pasco Bar Association. ``They were very thoughtful. His decisions were meticulous.
``We admired his ability to sustain the pressure not to follow the law. ... I think that shows his character.''
Steve Doran, association president-elect, echoed Hook's thoughts on Greer's handling of the Schiavo case.
``His decisions in that unfortunate case withstood the test of every appellate court in the country,'' Doran said. ``Those who are criticizing him are not seeing the big picture.''
When the association voted this month on this year's recipient of the Special Justice Award, the result was almost unanimous for Greer.
``He's a man of integrity. He's followed the flow. He's done an excellent job on the bench,'' said Miller. ``That's why he's getting this award.''
In addition to Greer's award, the Law Week celebration offers events that allow the community to get a closer look at what the West Pasco Bar Association and the law profession are about, Hook said.
``It's an opportunity to interact with all levels of the community,'' she said.
``It's not just about battles; law is a way of life.''
Here are some events:
* Representatives of the association will be at Gulf View Square mall in Port Richey offering free legal advice from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Wednesday through Friday.
* All week, 22 lawyers will visit Pasco schools to discuss the law and this week's national theme, ``The American Jury: We the People in Action.''
* The 2nd District Court of Appeal will hold a special session at 10 a.m. Wednesday at the West Pasco Government Center, 7530 Little Road, in county commission chambers.
* Business suits, shoes and accessories will be collected at area law offices for Connections, a not-for-profit organization that helps people looking for jobs.
The following law offices are collecting men's and women's apparel:
The Law Offices of Attridge, Cohen & Lucas, 7136 Little Road, New Port Richey; The O'Conner Law Group, 9735 U.S. 19, Suite 2, Port Richey; Pejot Law, 11911 Pine Forest Drive, New Port Richey; and The Law Offices of Gay & Ehrhardt, 5318 Balsam St., New Port Richey.
Reporter Lisa A. Davis can be reached at (727) 815-1083.
I always marvel at folks like you and your propensity to ask questions but never to answer them.
How was what happened to Terri Schiavo not a violation of Article One, Section Two of the Florida Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution?
How can you with a straight face claim that Terri Schiavo would have somehow wanted to be deprived of water and food and to die a horrible death of dehydration?
It's beyond belief that you can really believe that.
Schiavo Thoughts: Hearsay
Yesterday, I saw on the news a protester carrying a sign that asked, "SINCE WHEN IS HEARSAY ADMISSIBLE?" I wonder how often protests involve rules of evidence.
I also heard hosts on news shows of three different networks express bewilderment at how the trial court could have relied on hearsay to determine Terri's wishes.
If you've read the trial court's original decision regarding Terri's wishes, then you know the court considered five persons' testimony of what Terri supposedly said to them about what she wanted. That's the supposedly inadmissible hearsay. Some say it shouldn't have been admitted. Others say it can't amount to clear and convincing evidence. "It's not in writing!" they say, as if writings aren't hearsay, or that a writing would eliminate any controversy. (More on that oft-repeated fallacy in a later post.)
I've addressed this issue countless times in emails, but the email flood has gotten too large in the last couple days to respond to each one, and this issue continues to bother people. It doesn't help that the media haven't figured it out. I wish they would. They're supposed to be doing a public service.
So I'll do what I can to clear this up on the blog. Someone tell the news folks.
Courts generally employ rules of evidence during trials, and a well known rule of evidence holds that hearsay is admissible to prove something only in limited circumstances. Under Florida law, there are about 30 or so such circumstances. You could say that one of them applies here, such as the exception for statements describing the declarant's then-existing state of mind. You could also say that Terri's statements were not hearsay, since they were offered to prove she said those words, not to prove that what she said was true. Hearsay is an out of court assertion offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Those are evidentiary reasons why the testimony was admissible. There's a better reason. A constitutional reason. Terri had, and every Florida citizen has, a constitutional right to privacy that includes the right to decide that certain medical treatments should not be used to prolong her life. The Florida Supreme Court has clearly decided that this right can be exercised through written and oral statements.
In the landmark 1990 case In re Browning, Florida's high court explained that a surrogate attempting to determine what the ward would do can rely on the ward's written or oral statements. The court said:
A surrogate must take great care in exercising the patient's right of privacy, and must be able to support that decision with clear and convincing evidence. Before exercising the incompetent's right to forego treatment, the surrogate must satisfy the following conditions:
1. The surrogate must be satisfied that the patient executed any document knowingly, willingly, and without undue influence, and that the evidence of the patient's oral declarations is reliable;
2. The surrogate must be assured that the patient does not have a reasonable probability of recovering competency so that the right could be exercised directly by the patient; and
3. The surrogate must take care to assure that any limitations or conditions expressed either orally or in the written declaration have been carefully considered and satisfied.
The court also explained how the surrogate may have to defend any decision regarding the ward's orally declared wishes from a challenge by another person interested in the ward's welfare:
We emphasize, as did the district court, that courts are always open to adjudicate legitimate questions pertaining to the written or oral instructions. First, the surrogate or proxy may choose to present the question to the court for resolution. Second, interested parties may challenge the decision of the proxy or surrogate.
* * *
Although a surrogate may rely on oral statements made by the incompetent, while competent, to exercise the incompetent's wishes to forego life-sustaining treatment, the presumption of clear and convincing evidence that attaches to a written declaration does not attach to purely oral declarations. Oral evidence, considered alone, may constitute clear and convincing evidence. However, the surrogate would bear the burden of proof if a decision based on purely oral evidence is challenged.
Because the only issue before the court is a determination of the patient's wishes, challenges generally would be limited to that issue. For example, there may be challenges to claims that the declaration was not executed knowingly, willingly, and without undue influence; that the patient had changed his or her mind after executing the declaration; that the declaration was ambiguous; that the conditions or limitations contained in the declaration were not satisfied; that the surrogate or proxy was the one actually designated; and, of course, that there was a reasonable probability that the patient would regain competency. When the only evidence of intent is an oral declaration, the accuracy and reliability of the declarant's oral expression of intent also may be challenged.
(all emphasis added).
I quote these passages at length to show that the Florida Supreme Court has confirmed the ability of Florida citizens to use oral statements, not just written ones, to exercise their fundamental right to decline medical treatment. The rules of evidence help define how facts can be proved at trial, but they cannot be used to preclude the admission of statements that effectuate a fundamental constitutional right.
An assertion that the ward made a particular statement may certainly be challenged as unreliable -- that the ward never said it -- but there is no question that evidence of the ward's oral statements is admissible evidence, or that oral statements may constitute clear and convincing evidence. That's the law.
...posted by Matt Conigliaro http://abstractappeal.com/archives/2005_03_01_abstractappeal_archive.html#111167384435979940
You didn't and I didn't mean to say that you had stated that. However some of the more 'ardent' supporters on this very thread have.
I just find it hard to understand when Christians don't see anything wrong with the government killing American citizens.
Hey I would have no problem if the issue had been overturned with the state. I'm not cold and heartless ;). Although I do believe there is an underlying issue with the parents. Don't like Schiavo necessarily, but I'm no fan of the parents either. What I have a serious problem with was the Republican further destruction of federalism by involving the national government. This was a state issue per Madison
Very interesting that you seem more concerned about blocking commerce, parking violations, and an unsightly crowd than what was actually going on inside that hospice.
Murder - pure and simple starvation and dehydration.
Oh, and why was Terri not offered food and water by mouth after the plug/tubes were pulled? Was it because she would have strangled?
The fact that it was not offered - made it murder on top of all of the other state decisions.
Of course, those things were not worthy of note as you were so busy worrying about the parking.
How about the parking in your state? What about traffic jams, are they a real problem too? I just cannot tolerate those parking and traffic problems.
I'll join you in your passionate euphoria over life when there is no more death. But the reality is death is a fact of life. You can pretend it doesn't exist, that hope springs eternal, but people who have their feet firmly planted on the ground know that the inevitable is going to happen. How we deal with it is personal. I don't want to be subjected to some pro-life cultist whose view on the sanctity of life is to prolong suffering as long as humanly possible.
I am aware of your deep feelings and shallow thoughts on this matter.
Humph. You may not be Matt Conigliaro, but you sure channel him alot...
And I'm aware of your desire to try and marginalize me by trying to make me out as simply emotional.
But I fail to see how the simple words of our constitutions qualify as 'shallow thoughts'.
Perhaps that's your problem. You think they are.
You have had ample explanation of what people are upset about. You do not listen but divert attention. You have no just arguments.
In fact, I would wonder about your stands is this was about the Patriot Act, or about gun laws. Bet there would be a vast different view on government involvement then.
Funny, actually there is no difference. The government is killing an American citizen because the "elite" determined she was unworthy of life.
Yet, no concern from the government uninvolvement in our lives crowd. Wonder why.
You conveniently omit the fact that Judge Greer himself admitted that he made a material error when he considered what other people said about what Terri wanted; completely disregarding the testimony of one of her friends because he personally did not have knowledge of Karen Ann Quinlan, when she died, how she died and that he failed to look it up or have it researched.
He discredited the witness and her testimony because he was IGNORANT of the facts of the case that she was tesifying on.
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=12420
As usual, you try to distract with trivialities.
| Member Opinion | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 84.0% | |
4,628 |
| No | 9.8% | |
538 |
| Pass | 3.6% | |
201 |
| Undecided | 2.5% | |
140 |
| 99.9% | 5,507 | ||
I'm tempted to drink some of your Kool Aid. It must be refreshing. The truth has been bitter.
LOL...
I am against the federal government involvement in this case as well as other issues. States issues are decided by the states and the people who live there. Did you believe the President should have sent in federal marshalls? And who are these so-called elite you are talking about?
And that proves exactly what in relation to what I was talking about?
The God-given right to life is inalienable and therefore supercedes states' rights.
To put it another way: No State in the Union has the right to repeal the Bill of Rights.
The states' rights arguments in this case are nothing but a red herring designed to fool the naive.
Ain't it great bein' an 85% percenter??
We're livin' on the fringe, baby!!
ROFL...
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.