Ace Attorney: Can a Parrot participate in a trial? – Game of Faune

All seems lost. The evidence you presented to the court, the succession of witnesses and the cross-examinations you conducted to trap them in their lies – nothing can save your client. It is the final day of this incredible trial, which may put an end to a major conspiracy. But to do so, you must find the flaw. The prosecution lawyer may have done everything in his power to convict an innocent man, but you know you still have one last card to play.

GAME OF FAUNE – EPISODE 4

Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney is a detective light novel in which you play the defence lawyer Phoenix Wright, who must prove his clients’ innocence against all odds and even if necessary. To do so, he must investigate the scene and talk to numerous witnesses in order to gather valuable clues that will inevitably lead him to court. He must then prove that the person in the dock is – surprise, surprise – a true liar. Although seemingly unrelated at first glance, the four chapters of this first adventure are in fact linked by a narrative thread that will lead you to dig up some unsolved cases. The fourth episode, entitled “Turnabout Goodbyes” will be the epilogue to this imbroglio, and will lead you to defend the person who has been putting obstacles in your way since the beginning of the game, the prosecution lawyer Miles Edgeworth, accused of premeditated murder. I won’t say any more, as it’s better discover the plot for yourself.

REVIEW OF THE FILE

You should know that Phoenix calls a Parrot named Polly to testify on the stand, causing the player to burst out laughing and the audience, the judge (who asks her name without getting an answer) and the prosecution lawyer to fall into fits of laughter. Polly finds herself unwittingly testifying at a trial to shed more light on the case involving Hunter. It will therefore be your role as a barrister to find an inconsistency in the testimony of this extraordinarily rich bird. So extraordinary that it would have been unthinkable not to include it in its entirety.

« … »

« Hello, hello »

« squawk »

« … »

With what remains of your seriousness at this point, you will have to cross-examine the bird (well, try to cross-examine the bird) in order to reveal an important piece of the trial that is taking place here. The first of a long puzzle that will gradually come together in a final decisive plea.

While it is true that the bird’s intervention at the bar is one of the funniest and most memorable moments in the first episode, it is actually part of an equally absurd logic for the game with increasingly zany witnesses and culprits, enhanced by the remarkable characterisation work of Kumiko Suekane and Tatsuro Iwamoto.

To make what is not credible seem even more so, the developers personified the witness as a bird resembling a Scarlet Macaw, well known for its ability to speak and imitate. However, some liberties were taken in Polly’s design, such as a pinker hue to reinforce the bird’s feminine side (in reality, male and female Scarlet Macaws have the same colour in the visible spectrum) and the presence of an erectile crest, a feature more commonly found in Cockatoos. Polly’s beak is more closely related to Cockatoo too. The bird’s laconic nature is also very well portrayed, with Polly simply repeating words she has heard or learned. All this attention to detail suggests that one of the team members may have had an aviary bird that could have served as inspiration.

So while it is conceivable to have a talking bird at the bar of the courtroom, it remains to be seen whether this story is pure fiction on the part of the developers, or a pastiche of an event that actually took place. And while dogs, cats, pigs, chickens, monkeys and insects have been the victims of bizarre trials throughout history, Parrots seem to have remained much more discreet. Really?

EXAMINATION

On April 23rd, 1794, the Revolutionary Tribunal of Arras (France) tried a very unusual case. Marquis Louis-Auguste de Laviefville was accused, along with his daughter Izabelle, their nanny Caroline Pitre and their laundress Margueritte Farinaux, of high treason. This was a very serious offence in the current political climate, punishable by death. All because of their grey African Grey Parrot, who liked to trumpet a revolutionary and amusing passers- tune by “Long live the Emperor! Long live the king! Long live our priests! Long live the nobles!” However, this message did not amuse Commissioner Galand, who decided on 16 April 1794 to arrest Margueritte Farineaux and Caroline Pitre, the marquis and his daughter having already been arrested earlier in disturbing circumstances. The bird was also asked not to resist arrest. Jacot (a not very original name for this species in France ) found himself before the terrible Commissioner Galand, who attempted to interrogate him (or perhaps to avoid looking stupid in front of his colleagues; we will never know).

In any case, the five defendants (because our Parrot also faces the death penalty!) find themselves having to appear before the assembly on the famous 23 April 1794, starting with our bird, who, perhaps sensing the smell of the oven not far away, decided to remain silent when asked by the public prosecutor to repeat the famous forbidden phrases. Jacot contented himself with whistling, which saved his feathers. The same cannot be said for three of the defendants sentenced to death in a mock trial that was already lost before it began, with the exception of Caroline Pitre, who remained in detention. According to several sources, our feathered protagonist managed to escape unscathed after lengthy discussions. MP Armand Guffroy claimed that he had been entrusted to the wife of Joseph Lebon, the department’s secretary general, whose aim was to teach him more republican values by trumpeting ‘Long live the nation!’. It is unknown whether she succeeded.

As far-fetched as this story may seem, it was recorded in a judgment record (a public account of the trial) that has been preserved and digitised by the Pas-de-Calais departmental archives. To my knowledge, this Arras judgment is unprecedented in terms of its exceptional nature, its outcome, and its preservation to this day. It therefore further anchors the credibility of the scene seen in Ace Attorney, with the same great difficulty of getting the animal to speak in court. The virtual thus collides with the real with incredible luck, although I cannot rule out the existence of another trial (in Japan or elsewhere) with a similar story that may have inspired the developers.

But let us imagine a similar case occurring today. With much more established rules of justice and a stronger understanding of ethology, how would we judge the testimony of a Parrot? It is impossible to answer that question, isn’t ?

CROSS EXAMINATION

‘Don’t f***ing shoot!’ These were the last words spoken by Martin Duram before he was shot five times and killed in Michigan in May 2015. His wife Glenna was found seriously injured. The twist here is that these words were spoken by Martin’s African Grey Parrot, Bud, who was later given to his ex-wife Christian Keller. She claimed that the bird was repeating Marty’s voice, as well as Glenna’s and numerous loud noises reflecting the violence of the scene. Given the exceptional nature of this testimony and even this trauma, the authorities were faced with the legitimate question of whether or not to call the animal as a witness at the trial.

The case naturally caught the attention of the ornithological community, whose opinion was eagerly awaited at the time. However, the distinguished Dr Nathan Emery, a specialist in avian intelligence, was quick to dispel speculation. “I think it’s very unlikely that the parrot is repeating its owner’s last words” he commented. “Parrots (even the best vocal learners) need to be presented with the same words over and over during specific training to learn those words, and in the correct context”[…] “I doubt that the parrot understood that its owner had been murdered. But it certainly could understand that an individual that it formed a special bond with was unresponsive, inattentive to its calls and displays, not feeding it and possibly in distress when [the owner was] killed (if it was in front of [the parrot]).,” he concluded to Forbes.

The deliberation was also eagerly awaited by the lawyers, who decided not to consider Bud’s testimony in court, arguing in particular that the animal’s testimony would further discredit his accusation: ” “A parrot isn’t legally a person […] “Even if the ‘person’ requirement can somehow be overlooked, there’s also the requirement that the witness be able to testify ‘truthfully and understandably3 concludes Illinois lawyer Mike Dunford. This is embodied in Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which states in summary that “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one as unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence” Misleading the jury or confusing the issues, both of which could be attributed to the bird.

DELIBERATION

After deliberation, it does not seem possible at present that a scene such as the one seen in Ace Attorney could occur in reality. There are a few interesting examples, such as birds belonging to Colombian cartels that have been trained to alert the police (yes, really, I promise), but the mechanical nature of birds seems to undermine their credibility in court. However, ornithological knowledge is advancing at a stratospheric rate… and perhaps one day we will find out who killed Laura Palmer.

Thank you for reading this new episode of Game of Faune. I hope you enjoyed it. See you very soon for the next topic!