This is truly bizarre and may be an indication that the State Bar and Judicial conduct commission ought to spend some time out in the hinterlands.

Michigan police responded to an unsuccessful murder/suicide. Hubby caught five rounds and shuffled off the mortal coil. Mama took a round in the head and survived. While she was recuperating, family members took care of the new widow’s parrot. They claim and have supplied videotape that indicates to them  that the parrot witnessed the shooting. They claim that the bird can recount the moments leading up to the shooting, to include the male victim begging for his life. On this basis the prosecutor has filed a murder charge against the wife.

In a criminal trial, the judge is responsible for the law and rules on the admissibility of evidence. The jury is responsible for weighing the facts, that is how much value to put on any piece of evidence. Attorneys can argue for or against why any particular piece of evidence should be admitted (put before the jury). But the judge has the ultimate say based on the rules of evidence as to what is admissible.

Two rules come into play, in regards to the bird’s testimony. One is hearsay, and the ability to distinguish truth from fiction. In this instance the parrot is not describing events as he saw them. He is reporting or repeating a conversation that he overheard. The repeating of a conversation is called hearsay and is generally not admissible as evidence, with some exceptions. One such exception would be an “excited utterance” made by the victim at the time of the event. The parrot is unable to establish a context as to when the statement was made, by whom and what transpired immediately before and after the statement. Without the context I’m not sure there is an “excited utterance” or a viable exception to the hearsay rule.

A second rule comes into play and is usually applied when dealing with children and idiots. The assumption is that some people children and idiots are not capable of giving testimony because they don’t know right from wrong or cannot distinguish fact from fantasy. Forty years ago there was a hard and fast age specified that varied from state to state, ten comes to mind. Now judges are allowed to conduct a “voir dire” a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine  the ability of the witness to answer questions. A stated belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny is no longer disqualifying, if that belief is age appropriate. So an eight year old who believes that Santa is going to bring him a pony, is more likely to testify than a sixty-three year old who believes that same Santa is going to bring him a nineteen year old hardbody.

I don’t see the bird surviving a voir dire. The parrot may be able to repeat the ditty about the “lady from Nantucket” but I don’t think a spirited discussion of Billy Graham’s greatest sermons is in the cards.

Just because a prosecutor can get an indictment against a ham sandwich doesn’t mean that he should. Woman-charged-killing-husband-shooting-head-appears-court-prosecutor-call-filthy-mouthed-parrot-Bud-witnessed-murder-stand.