Posts
It might be a Vermont thing, but cows
get mentioned a lot during local court trials.
The reason for that is the “cows in a
field” example that judges often read as part of their instructions
to the jury. These instructions come at the end of a trial, after the
attorneys have finished their closing arguments and have agreed on
the contents of the instructions, which for the most part are the
same from trial to trial but can differ depending on elements of the
case. They endeavor to make clear to the jury that they are only to
consider the evidence presented to them and make a decision based on
what the law actually says. The instructions gives some guidance on
how to view the evidence, what is and isn't evidence, types of
evidence, and so on.
Here's where cows come in.
“Cows in a field” is used to
explain the difference between direct evidence and indirect evidence,
or circumstantial evidence as it's often called. A photograph of cows
in a field is direct evidence that cows were in the field. Pictures
of cow tracks in the field is indirect, or circumstantial, evidence
that cows were in the field. According to these jury instructions,
both types of evidence carry the same weight.
This is just a guess, but cows are used
as an example because most court cases don't involve them. They're
neutral and if you live in rural New England you've probably seen
them before. They're certainly less prejudicial than bruises on a
person's face being circumstantial evidence they were punched, or
some other awful thing.
Indirect evidence that cows frequent this field. Also, guess how many photos of "cow tracks" also feature "cow pies."
Direct evidence that cows are in this field.
