QUESTION: Terri's case

Protection of a jury! QUESTION

Why didn’t Terri’s parents lawyer demand that Terri’s 14th amendment due process right to a trial by jury be afforded her in a case in which the state was called upon to end her life, thereby taking the case out of the hands of judge Greer and other corrupt judges and putting the evidence of Terri’s alleged wishes before the people, acting under their constitutionally assigned duty as a jury?

For documentation on this important issue, the constitutional right of Terri’s to the protection of a jury see:
Terri Schiavo: due process denied? http://www.jeffersonreview.com/articles/2005/032105/terri.htm

No jury has spoken in Terri’s case, but corrupted judges have imposed their will.

JWK

acrs

The purpose of a jury is:

.“…to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power -- to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the over-zealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge."--Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 US 522 , 530 (1975)

P.S.

The only related case law I can find which went to the Supreme Court regarding the due process question of a jury trial was in In re Mabel Jones, 339 So.2d 1117 (1978). The basis of the decision was that there was (allegedly) no right to a jury trial in Florida when the state constitution was adopted and that the U.S. Supreme Court had not decided whether a jury trial is required under the U.S. Constitution. Aside from the fact that Florida’s original constitution does in fact provide for the protection of a jury, Justice Boyd filed a dissenting opinion which is very revealing:

In my opinion, the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Florida contemplate that persons who are about to be denied their personal freedom by incarceration of any kind should have jury trials when they request them. ... I have difficulty in understanding why a person accused of violating the criminal statutes should be entitled to a jury trial when, at the same time, a person who is about to be involuntarily confined in an institution by the State should not...
It is well recognized that unsupported allegations of insanity can have a detrimental effect upon the personal lives and careers of people. It should not be left to the discretion of a single judge to make determinations of such allegations. Whenever insanity is used as a defense for crime, juries evaluate and determine the question and likewise, when requested, they should make determinations in civil commitment proceedings.
... persons accused of mental illness are sent away to institutions through the benevolence of the State without what I consider to be constitutional safeguards granted to the most vicious criminals. This is inherently unfair and a denial of Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process of law.
I respectfully dissent.

It should be noted that in the Jones case, the patient was only being detained for a short period of time, protective custody, which is far different than Terri’s case in which the state has been called upon to end her life and is irreversible and final.

Terri’s right to the protection of a jury was waived without her knowing and willing consent in a case in which the state has been called upon to end her life, and a judge, Judge Greer, improperly acted as a judge for Terri, legal counsel for Terri, decision maker for Terri, jury for Terri and then issued a court order to end her life, which is characteristic of a Star Chamber Court process