|
Tax Refund posted:Considering what we've already seen in terms of evidence suddenly becoming relevant when nobody thought it would be until the witness said a certain thing, that has all sorts of potential for humorous-in-retrospect situations. "Your Honor, I want to place the victim's passport into evidence. I have no idea why, but maybe someone will mention something during the trial that will make her recent travels relevant? What? No, it's my partner's sister who has E.S.P., not me. I'm just getting a hint from my Protagonist Powers that this passport is going to be needed tomorrow, that's all." I'm pretty sure that every successful defense lawyer in the Ace Attorney games has that power (most of the prosecutors too). I think you have to be some kind of latent psychic to win as a defense attorney in Japanifornia. Of course, the whole thing would be a lot less weird and humorous if discovery was a thing here, but it isn't so both sides are blindsiding each other constantly; it just works out that since they restrict the defense's access to the police's investigation that we mostly are the ones getting blindsided.
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:27 |
|
|
Hobgoblin2099 posted:No personal attacks against the prosecution. But the prosecution is perfectly able to make personal attacks against the defense attorney and the victim of the case. Even worse, the judge is sustaining objections about lines of questioning that the witness isn't answering at all. I mean she could easily just say, "I happened to be looking out the window at the right time for no particular reason." But she didn't. It's hardly badgering to ask for her to answer a question with someone beyond a growl.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Dr. Buttass posted:At the end of the first case the judge is like "I've never seen anyone prove their client innocent so fast and also find the real killer at the same time" and that goes out the window, like, instantly. I've only played the second game all the way through but there's at least one case where you conclusively prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that your client is innocent before you make any headway on fingering the real killer. If you don't find the real culprit before the judge gets fed up with your bullshit and says "I'm bored so the case is over now," your client is still pronounced guilty because they have to execute someone. Look okay, that 99.99% conviction rate ain't going to maintain itself.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:This is also kinda for gameplay/narrative reasons, because it wouldn't be a satisfying mystery if you didn't find out the real culprit, and you still need a failure state even after you've proved your client innocent and I guess they just couldn't program anything special for it. I don't really agree with that, when there aren't personal stakes for the case just making sure that the innocent isn't punished and not doing the police and prosecutor's jobs for them would be fine narratively. But we'd get like 75% less hilarious meltdowns, so overall it would be a net loss.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Mzbundifund posted:Of course this is Japanifornia, where "Guilty until proven innocent" doesn't even begin to cover it. The Japanifornian system operates on a "first person the police touch is guilty until someone else confesses in court" system. Funky Valentine posted:
It just says, "What is this? you can't have surprise evidence! Only I can! This isn't how the rigged show trial is supposed to go at all!"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:He also gets to badger the witnesses something fierce, all things considered. Except when they're really obviously evading answering a question and the prosecution objects. Like right now, it's super suspicious that the witness ordered room service in advance for the exact time of the murder. I think we might get to call her ability to have actually witnessed the crime into question, but in a trial carried out under an english common law derived system the fact that she went out of her way to establish an alibi for the murder would be enough to taint her testimony. And if it wasn't, her clear description of the events of the murder would point to either coaching by the prosecution or her involvement in a conspiracy to frame your client. I think you could make an interesting game around gradually destroying the jury's confidence in the prosecutions case even if the system was fairer. Also, I think that a theme of the games is pointing out the problems of the Japanese legal system. You're honestly supposed to be angry at the gross miscarriages of justice on display since the game is political satire.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:True, but on the other hand I believe that you're not allowed to accuse someone on the witness stand of being the real killer on the basis of their testimony either. Then again, IANAL. Probably, but remember the standard here is that the defendant is guilty until someone else is proven guilty, there wouldn't be a reason to have a trial if you couldn't accuse a witness.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Shiki Dan posted:White is powerful, connected, and dangerous...but also a total loving moron. Yeah, some of them will be neither powerful nor connected.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:Fixed to reflect the outfits; at least Amish folk look kinda respectable, if archaic, but what on earth is happening with Maya's clothes? You don't like the traditional American kimono?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:27 |
|
|
i81icu812 posted:Yeah, there's a bunch of municipalities and cities in California and elsewhere that have done this to make a point about nukes. Well it's not impossible that someone couldn't run afoul of this law, and there are a few DoE labs in California that do nuclear research. But I'm guessing that the point of the law was mostly to keep any business/university that worked in the field out of the city limits because NIMBYism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2016 01:54
|
|