Legal Question

[LadySmith]

Can a bird be used by the prosecution as a witness to a murder? The parents of the murder victim believe the victim's pet parrot is talking about it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/parrot-murder_us_575202b0e4b0c3752dcdbb0d

On one hand, it's a bird. On the other hand, some birds, especially parrots, have been proven to be intelligent critters.
We use and trust drug-sniffing dogs. Why not crime-witnessing parrots?

[Hawkmoon]

I saw that article.

I don't think a parrot can be used as a "witness," as in being put on the stand, sworn in, asked questions, and then cross-examined by the defense. However, perhaps the bird can be used as evidence -- but I think there would need to be more than just a bird squawking, "Don't f***ing shoot!" to make a case.

[Ben]

Using a parrot or similar as evidence would be interesting.

What if while LE was investigating a murder in a home, a bird said something like, "I buried the knife in the backyard" and because of that the cops searched the backyard and found a knife with fingerprints/DNA? Would the defense be able to argue the knife was inadmissible? Or would it be similar to the cops seeing drops of blood leading into the backyard and to a mound of freshly dug dirt?

Of course a bird as a witness in court has been done before:

https://youtu.be/sZeqHamjyjU?t=820

[T.O.M.]

I can think of no way in which the parrot or what the parrot says can come into evidence.  Obviously, the parrot can't testify.  And I cannot think of a way in which the "statement" can be admitted, as there really isn't a way to demonstrate the reliability of the bird to accurately recall and repeat what it heard.  With scent dogs, the certification process deonstrates the reliability of the dog, and even then the dog indicating on the scent is not considered proof, but rather an indication.  The en scent indication amounts to probable cause, and will justify a search, but the indication alone does not amount to proof of guilt, which is what would happen if the bird "testified."

[RevDisk]

I can think of no way in which the parrot or what the parrot says can come into evidence.  Obviously, the parrot can't testify.  And I cannot think of a way in which the "statement" can be admitted, as there really isn't a way to demonstrate the reliability of the bird to accurately recall and repeat what it heard.  With scent dogs, the certification process deonstrates the reliability of the dog, and even then the dog indicating on the scent is not considered proof, but rather an indication.  The en scent indication amounts to probable cause, and will justify a search, but the indication alone does not amount to proof of guilt, which is what would happen if the bird "testified."

I concur that a bird can't testify, and probably wouldn't be considered evidence or a statement. Best case would be usefulness for probable cause if that's an issue. "Rawk! We buried the body at 123 Main St!" may or may not get you a search warrant, but nothing beyond that. As Chris states, there's no standard for reliability. It's a bird.

http://i.imgur.com/0LrqIzh.jpg (Warning, single swear word)

[lupinus]

How about an expert witness? Most of them are bird brained anyway. He's probably got a higher IQ than some of them.


Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.

[230RN]

Reminds me of the cartoon of a parrot in a cage next to a couch in an empty living room.   "Awk! Your hands are cold, Joe!  Your hands are cold, Joe!  Awwwwk!"

[T.O.M.]

How about an expert witness? Most of them are bird brained anyway. He's probably got a higher IQ than some of them.


Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.

I was thinking more along the line of co-counsel.

[Hawkmoon]

How about an expert witness? Most of them are bird brained anyway. He's probably got a higher IQ than some of them.

Hey! I've been an expert witness on multiple occasions.





Or did I just prove your point?

[MillCreek]

Hey! I've been an expert witness on multiple occasions.





Or did I just prove your point?

As long as you meet Daubert criteria, I am fine with you.

[KD5NRH]

Hmmm...husband fatally shot five times with the same gun that she tried to kill herself with, after leaving multiple suicide notes.  And yet, she hasn't been charged because the bird isn't a reliable witness?

I'm thinking the bird is brighter than their DA.

[MechAg94]

I can think of no way in which the parrot or what the parrot says can come into evidence.  Obviously, the parrot can't testify.  And I cannot think of a way in which the "statement" can be admitted, as there really isn't a way to demonstrate the reliability of the bird to accurately recall and repeat what it heard.  With scent dogs, the certification process deonstrates the reliability of the dog, and even then the dog indicating on the scent is not considered proof, but rather an indication.  The en scent indication amounts to probable cause, and will justify a search, but the indication alone does not amount to proof of guilt, which is what would happen if the bird "testified."

I guess that is the same reason confidential police informants are allowed for search warrants?

[BlueStarLizzard]

I think if they'd stop with anthropomorphic crap in regards to the parrot and consider it more in terms of being something like a living tape recorder, than it could be an interesting case.

However, I would note that because the chain of custody was broken (parrot was living with parents of the deceased) and the fact that the "recording" could have been faked, would throw this bit of evidence out anyway.