What questions can I ask in court from an animal in a zoo?

Answer 1

According to K-9 Magazine, in September 2008, a dog named Scooby was called as a witness in a murder trial in France. This was a first for French law and it is also believed to have been the world's first time a dog has appeared as a witness at a trial. Thomas Cassuto, the judge, praised the dog for his "exemplary behavior and invaluable assistance".

The way may now be better cleared for a wild animal from a zoo to appear in court as a witness due to this recent historic event. But, obstacles will no doubt remain for this to become a frequent occurrence world wide. For example, it could certainly be argued that a wild zoo animal is considerably less reliable as a witness than is a domesticated canine.

As to what questions could be asked, each situation would potentially have a different answer to the question. It could make a big difference what offenses the case involves, the jurisdiction of the court, the precedence from prior verdicts, if a summary judgment is being requested or a full trial, and the tolerance of the judge.

If the animal is appearing as an expert witness, counsel would need to be sure the zoo animal is prepared for cross-examination on its qualifications. Some zoo animals do not handle interrogation very well. Eye-witness accounts may be less accepted from bats, for example, and it might take much more to convince a jury to consider the nose-witness accounts of some zoo animals than it would take for others.

Additional considerations to be addressed by the prosecution and defense teams pre-trial include: Will a court-accepted translator be available who is qualified in each of the many world and species languages that come with the territory of zoo animal communications? Will the court be willing to convene at times appropriate for the creature, such as night court for the nocturnal species? How hostile will the witness appear when in court away from its natural habitat? Will the jury or judge be biased because of personal allergy or phobias or by the offensive odors, behaviors, or appearances of some witnesses?

Bias and bigotry for and against certain species and their testimonies based upon thousands of years of preconceptions from lore, mythology, and literary assignment of qualities and characteristics to certain animals (rightly or wrongly assigned) could be a considerable obstacle for one side of the case or the other.

Jury selection could be an extremely drawn out and difficult process. For example, how would you find a juror who will accept the accounts of a weasel as just as believable as those of an owl? Will a skunk's testimony stink and lack detail that an elephant could easily pull from memory? Are snakes going to have to work as consultants to the law firms instead of being welcomed to testify directly in court? Will a horse be more appreciated for the sense and practical knowledge that he can provide in his witness account than can an ox? Can a jury be convinced of the innocence of the motives of a fox or will they assume some cunning conspiracy is lurking beneath the surface of its testimony?

Yes, your question leads to many other questions. One thing that you can probably count on, however, as a defense attorney in such a case, is that the witnesses would be able to relate to the accused criminal's life behind bars with empathy.