“Don’t shoot” would probably fall under the excited-utterance hearsay exception.

I’ve had an African Grey parrot for 20 years, and my bird has picked up some words and phrases after only one or two repetitions.

The more emotionally loaded the delivery the more likely my bird is to remember and reproduce it, even more likely if I am speaking, as he is bonded to me, not my wife (who he also mimics)

If I was on the jury hearing the victim beg for his life via his parrot would be extremely pursuasive.

The prosecutor decided against attempting to get the parrot’s statement into evidence, as he believed it would not be admitted.

On the “psittacine hearsay” case —

I think there is little question that Christina Keller’s testimony about the parrot’s alleged utterance is hearsay if it was offered as proof that Martin Duram said “don’t shoot”.

It would be interesting to know what rules of evidence allowed the parrot’s alleged utterance into evidence.

There is lots of room for mischief here.