Throughout history, legal systems have grappled with the unusual practice of putting inanimate objects on trial for causing harm or death to humans. From ancient Greece's Prytaneion court to medieval Europe's concept of deodands, and even in modern asset forfeiture cases, this seemingly bizarre legal tradition has served various social and cultural functions, helping societies make sense of tragic events and maintain a sense of justice and order.

In ancient Athens, a special court called the Prytaneion was dedicated to trying inanimate objects involved in accidental deaths. One notable case involved a statue of the athlete Theagenes of Thasos, which was prosecuted and thrown into the sea after it fell and killed one of Theagenes' rivals. The court's function, as described by the 4th century BC orator Demosthenes, was to hold trials for objects like stones, pieces of wood, or iron that had caused a person's death. This practice reflected the Greek belief that even lifeless objects should not be denied a trial when accused of such a grave offense.

Evolving from ancient practices, the concept of deodands emerged in medieval Europe around the 11th century. These were objects or animals that had caused a person's death and were consequently forfeited to the crown for pious uses. The value of the deodand, rather than the object itself, was typically handed over to authorities. For instance, in 1267, a vat of boiling water that caused a washerwoman's death was declared a deodand and valued at 18 pence. Deodands could range from everyday items like cartwheels to livestock, reflecting the belief that even inanimate objects should be held accountable for fatal accidents. This practice persisted in England until 1846, when it was finally abolished.

In rem jurisdiction, a modern legal concept, allows courts to take action against property rather than individuals. This principle is prominently used in asset forfeiture cases, where property connected to illegal activities can be seized by the government. A notable example is the case of United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, where the court ruled that money linked to drug trafficking could be forfeited. Other unusual cases include United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster, where a gold statue was seized under the Gold Reserve Act, and United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts, involving an attempt to seize a motel allegedly used for drug deals.

Trials of inanimate objects served important social and cultural purposes beyond mere legal proceedings. By creating narratives that assigned blame to objects for chaotic or tragic events, communities could cope with otherwise inexplicable occurrences. This practice reinforced the idea that nothing was above the law, maintaining social order and providing a sense of moral balance. Additionally, these trials offered a mechanism for developing communal narratives in cases where human culpability was difficult to establish, helping to domesticate chaos and reflect the moral values of the community. The variation in jury conclusions across different regions demonstrates how these trials were primarily concerned with social justice within specific communities rather than broad legal rules.