| 1 | !!Headscratchers for the series in general go here. Please direct Headscratchers specific to individual games/subseries to [[Headscratchers/PhoenixWrightAceAttorney Headscratchers: Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney]], [[Headscratchers/PhoenixWrightAceAttorneyJusticeForAll Headscratchers: Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Justice for All]], [[Headscratchers/PhoenixWrightAceAttorneyTrialsAndTribulations Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Trials and Tribulations]], [[Headscratchers/ApolloJusticeAceAttorney Headscratchers: Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney]], [[Headscratchers/AceAttorneyInvestigationsMilesEdgeworth Headscratchers: Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth]], [[Headscratchers/PhoenixWrightAceAttorneyDualDestinies Headscratchers: Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Dual Destinies]], [[Headscratchers/PhoenixWrightAceAttorneySpiritOfJustice Headscratchers: Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Spirit of Justice]], or [[Headscratchers/TheGreatAceAttorney Headscratchers: The Great Ace Attorney]]. |
| 2 | [[foldercontrol]] |
| 3 | [[folder: Can spirit channelers have a measure of control over the ones they resurrect or not?]] |
| 4 | * The idea of spirit channeling is that their souls vacate their bodies to bring back the souls of the dead one. From this point they have no memories of anything the recalled one does since they technically don't exist anymore. I don't remember exactly what she said, but I believe Maya says something about how an inexperienced medium couldn't control the resurrected one, hence why she left for more training. In a later case the Master of the art resurrects someone who had murder on the mind, and seemingly would have been successful at killing her target if she hadn't been killed first. Considering the target was the Master's own daughter, you'd think if it was possible to control the resurrected one they'd have certainly done it. If it's not possible to control a resurrected one, no matter WHAT your level of skill or experience, then spirit channeling seems inherently dangerous, since you never know how the spirit will use your body. |
| 5 | ** If it helps, the anime, at least, supports Maya's statement that an experienced medium can have some measure of control over the spirit they channel--Morgan uses Case 2-2 to insinuate that Maya isn't fit as a spirit medium for losing control of the spirit she "channeled". Additionally, during a flashback to Misty's murder, Godot mentions that it was possible Misty could have gotten Dahlia under control if he hadn't barged in to "rescue" Maya at that moment, and there's a lingering shot of Dahlia's hand [[FightingFromTheInside shaking while holding her knife]]. It is true that Misty was a master, but she'd also been out of practice for over a decade at that point. Perhaps you need to be at the absolute top of your game to control a spirit possessing your body without issue. |
| 6 | ** I can't imagine that a group of people would ever consider letting dead people hijack their bodies if it wasn't possible to enact some degree of control over them. After all, it would take slipping up for a second to let an angry ghost take its revenge on a target and leave the channeler to deal with the consequences. It may depend partially on the spirit in question: some are just naturally more willing to cooperate with others, letting even rookie mediums channel mostly safely. Others may be more hostile and/or strong-willed, requiring a more skilled medium to prevent them from taking their bodies for a joyride. Even masters probably have limits on who they could safely summon. Dahlia was a special case: she's not only an extremely strong-willed, very evil soul, but a former medium herself who had a specific plan in mind for when she would be channeled. I'd imagine she would the type of spirit classified under the "Do Not Channel Under Any Circumstances" category for being impossible to fully control. Misty knew the risks, but decided to do it anyway out of desperation to protect her only surviving daughter.[[/folder]] |
| 7 | [[folder: Found guilty? Just fix it next month]] |
| 8 | * While I can still see the issue, why does Phoenix and co. act like a guilty verdict is the end all, be all? When someone is found guilty in the 3 day span the judge states there will be another trial at a higher court within a month. So it's not like you'd have to file papers and go through a process of forcing a retrial. It's already going to happen automatically. Having an extra month to look into the matters of the case should give enough time to find something that can overturn the prosecutions claims. It would likely still have a negative impact on their reputation if they were found guilty even if it was later overturned, but that guilty verdict doesn't end the case permanently and sets up the possibility your client would go free shortly after if you found a compelling piece of evidence. |
| 9 | ** "Higher court" refers to either a supreme court or appellate court, as apposed to a trial court, which also has the title of "Court of Appeal" and "Last Resort Court", amongst others. It's not a "you're not officially guilty yet" scenario, it's a matter of offering the defendant a case for appeal (which is almost always going to be rejected, without solid ground). To quote wikipedia: "An appellate court, commonly called an appeals court, court of appeals, appeal court, court of appeal, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal." The more bizarre thing here how it seems to be a ''mandatory'' right for all convicted defendants to have an appeal trial, although I suppose it could just be a way for the legal system to compensate for the "swift" nature of the Initial Trial System, by giving convicted defendants an easy route for appeal. |
| 10 | [[/folder]] |
| 11 | [[folder: No guilty pleas in AA universe?]] |
| 12 | * The whole notion of the 3 day system is that the courts are bogged down with so many cases they have to speed up the process. The issue here is that even when someone admits guilt openly they still have to go through the trial process, which seems redundant. Simon Blackquill professed his guilt from the start, Lana Skye professed her guilt at the start of day 3, but was overridden. If the idea is to speed up the process to have more cases heard in a smaller timeframe then why go through a trial at all when the defendant is accepting guilt? It seems like a waste of the courts time and goes against what they were aiming for with the reformation. |
| 13 | ** The out-of-universe explanation is that it's based on the Japanese court system, which has no concept of pleas. |
| 14 | [[/folder]] |
| 15 | [[folder: Spirit channeling in-universe?]] |
| 16 | * From a purely in-universe perspective, why don't those who are fully aware of the existence of spirit channeling never once ask a Fey to perform one after the events of case 3-5? Given the multitude of relatively mundane ways spirit channeling has been used before this point (like in 2-4, where Maya and Pearl chain-channel Mia in order to help pinpoint the fleeing de Killer's location, or the multiple times channeled!Mia's appearance has seduced otherwise unhelpful witnesses into cooperation) it's rather surprising that Phoenix never turns to the Fey clan's spirit channeling powers for help in [=AA4=] or [=AA5=]. This becomes downright strange during the DLC case Turnabout Reclaimed, where Phoenix meets Pearl, who immediately demonstrates her continued willingness to use her supernatural powers to help him, but afterwards neither Phoenix nor Pearl even consider the possibility of Pearl channeling Jack Ripley's spirit and simply asking him how he died. While it makes sense from a narrative perspective that this doesn't actually happen, it seems quite odd that the idea is not at least brought up. |
| 17 | ** Pearls was a little too young to be channeling spirits. She did channel Mia a few times, but that was only on instinct. Also, Edgeworth stated that he hates anything to do with spirit mediums after the infamous DL-6 incident. |
| 18 | ** ''Spirit of Justice'' confirms that Maya and Pearl are the only channelers around, and the former was abroad training. |
| 19 | ** Phoenix is clearly not keen in using spirit channeling as means to find out what happened (and such a thing has precedent, with Gregory Edgeworth and Dahlia Hawthorne either not knowing critical information, or being uncooperative) as the first time he does make use of it (Case 6-3) is when he literally has no other routes left. That being said, Mia did make use of spirit channeling in her investigations - in Case 1-2, Mia's notes mention consulting with the dead to find out Redd White and Grossberg were the ones who caused Misty Fey's exile. Either she did it herself (Maya implies she could), or used Maya to interact with them. |
| 20 | [[/folder]] |
| 21 | [[folder: Jail clothes in-universe?]] |
| 22 | * Though I know the real reason is due to recycling sprites, do you think there's an in-game reason why the defendants are never given jail uniforms while incarcerated (You'll notice that when you come to the detention center, they'll be in their street clothes)? It seems that many of them are forced to stay in jail for more than 24 hours, so that would mean they'd have to be moved into the general prison population until trial and hence they'd need the proper uniforms. Do they just wear the clothes on their backs when incarcerated? |
| 23 | ** Technically they are being held in the detention centre as they await their first trial, which at most means they stay there for four or five days tops. After that they'd either be found innocent and let go or found guilty of the initial trial and probably sent to prison while awaiting their next trial. |
| 24 | *** While that explains most everyone, there's two people that kinda raise the ??? flag: Maggey and Simon. Simon you can explain as he has special permission but for some reason, a month after ''actually being charged with murder'' and thus ''has actually been in prison'' and not the detention centre, Maggey is wearing her waitress outfit. |
| 25 | *** Also, Maggey isn't just wearing the same outfit she had on her upon arrest, at least not entirely. Her apron is definetely a different one since the one she was wearing upon arrest was a piece of evidence during her trial. If she was allowed to get clothes from outside of the prison, why did she chose her work uniform rather than some normal clothes? |
| 26 | ** It is possible that the prison authorities had abolished prisoner uniforms or at least made it optional some time after the death of Terry Fawles, which may also explain why neither Morgan nor Dahlia were shown wearing prison-issued uniforms in the [[Anime/AceAttorney2016 anime adaptation]] even after being convicted. |
| 27 | *** Actually, The Imprisoned Turnabout, the second case of the second Edgeworth game takes place in a prison and you do see the prisoners there in the classic black and white striped uniform. |
| 28 | [[/folder]] |
| 29 | [[folder: Doesn't evidence law make evidence used from Phoenix's own investigations illegal?]] |
| 30 | * In 1-5, we're taught about evidence law, specifically that evidence needs to have the approval of the Police before it can be used in court. So... aren't all the evidence that Phoenix uses from his own investigations from the past 5 cases illegal? |
| 31 | ** It's assumed that they're approved off-screen between the end of the investigation and when you show up in court. |
| 32 | ** In 1-5, we're also taught that any evidence that isn't approved by the police department can be legalized if the presenter can offer a credible connection between the case at hand and the evidence (second rule of Evidence Law). This is probably how Phoenix manages to hide most of his case breakers from the prosecutors. |
| 33 | ** In 1-2, Phoenix defeated Redd White using updated evidence in the form of a contact list. |
| 34 | *** Which wasn't submitted into evidence. Phoenix just started reading out the list of names with no context as to what they were or why they were relevant. It defeated Redd White because he didn't want to reveal exactly what linked those names together (i.e.That Redd White was blackmailing them all) because of the repurcussions that would have. |
| 35 | *** Exactly. He doesn't actually submit the list as evidence, he just uses it to get Redd White to confess, which is cheating the system a little, but isn't actually breaking it. It's the same kinda thing as in 2-2, when Franziska shows the illegal picture she took to the court, but doesn't actually submit it as evidence, to burn the implications into the everyone's minds. |
| 36 | [[/folder]] |
| 37 | [[folder: Luke Atmey's nose leaves him incapable of wearing the mask?]] |
| 38 | * http://larkismyname.deviantart.com/art/PW-COMIC-The-Atmey-Paradox-74843496?q=gallery%3Alarkismyname%2F65281&qo=70 An incredibly valid contradiction. Explain please. |
| 39 | ** No real explanation however, it probably happened due to stock sprites being used for characters. Atmey's design for example may have been thought up last minute after the photo was done. |
| 40 | ** In an interview, the creators said animations took up a lot of space in a DS cartridge, so some sprites had to be cut out. |
| 41 | ** Similar to how one wonders Doggie puts on his DekaMaster helmet which means let's just leave it at that. |
| 42 | ** You know that you can try moving your own nose's point up or down, do you? It would cause him some discomfort, but there is nothing stopping Luke from wearing his mask, unless it was made out of paper. |
| 43 | [[/folder]] |
| 44 | [[folder: Is ace attorney twenty minutes into the future?]] |
| 45 | * Is it true that only the American versions of the game are TwentyMinutesIntoTheFuture? I'm confused by that point. |
| 46 | ** The Japanese version takes place around present day (a year or so into the future). The reason the Western version takes place ten years into the future is the justify the in-game legal system being too different to that off the current day American system. |
| 47 | ** We are technically in 2015 and we still have old cell phones and low-tech security cameras. Only in 2028 are we expected to plunge into the future of the court of law. |
| 48 | ** Actually, I think the years in both versions are the same. The only definitive year given in the main games (though I'm not sure about the ''Investigations'' games) is that the DL-6 incident occurred in 2001, 15 years before the events of the first game. 2001 was the year the original GBA game came out in Japan, so I would think this was intentional and the games were set in the future in Japan as well. |
| 49 | [[/folder]] |
| 50 | [[folder: Why are there a lot less female victims/murderers?]] |
| 51 | * This series's fixation with MenAreTheExpendableGender. There are only two cases in this entire series where the victim is female, both Feys. There's a difference between Website/WomenInRefrigerators and avoiding killing women at all.us For that matter the lack of female murderers, it totals as three (six if you count Dahlia Hawthorne's murders separately). |
| 52 | ** Female Victims: There are actually 4 in the Phoenix arc Cindy Stone, Mia Fey, Valerie Hawthorne, Misty Fey/Elise Deauxnim, although none in AJ or AAI, unless you count Cece Yew, whose murder is a minor, but significant part of the plot, but isn't the subject of any actual investigation. |
| 53 | *** Also, some of Joe Darke's victims, but that's just being anal. |
| 54 | ** Female Murderers: There's at least one in most games (PW - Dee Vasquez, JFA - Mimi Miney, T&T - Dahlia Hawthorne, AJ - Alita Tiala, DD - only a kidnapper, SoJ - Ga'ran Sigatar Khura'in and two in AAI - Cammy Meele and Callisto Yew) |
| 55 | *** Also Mari Miwa in GK 2, Belle Windsor in the manga. |
| 56 | *** There are also at least seven female accomplices: AA - April May and Lana Skye, JFA - Morgan Fey, T&T - Viola Cadaverini, Valerie Hawthorne, and Morgan Fey again, AAI - Lauren Paupes and Shih-na. None in AJ though. |
| 57 | ** There's also a basis in reality that women are both less likely to commit murder and less likely to be murdered. |
| 58 | ** HOLD IT! ...Wasn't the very first victim in the series female? |
| 59 | *** Yes. |
| 60 | ** There have only been two cases with a female murderer AND victim: In 3-4 Dahlia killed Valerie, in one case in the Miles Edgeworth manga. There are three times were a woman tried to kill a female character: Morgan Fey conspires to kill Maya Fey and Ga'ran Sigatar Khura'in conspires to kill Amara Sigatar Khura'in. |
| 61 | ** Statistically, in real life, men commit more crimes and are more often victims of crime. But the game is mostly about murders, so if we only look at that: Men are responsible for most of the murders and are the victim of murder more than half the time. One of the reasons is that criminals are almost always men and murder under criminals is relatively common. Though, the game is most often about murder between family members, friends and colleagues and women primarily murder in these circumstances (although not more than men do) and victims of these kinds of murders are more often than not female. So we should see some more female victims AND murderers, especially since AA isn't following statistics exactly anyway: very few murders are between criminals or by criminals, most male characters are killed for personal reasons by friends, family or other acquaintances and no women (to date) have been killed by ex-boyfriends/husbands/admirers. |
| 62 | *** The problem with statistics like these is that you just cannot apply them to extraordinarily cherry-picked cases taken by justice seeking lawyers. Saying that the series "doesn't follow murder statistic" because stuff like the gender ratio, and motives do not align to overall statistical research, is fallible, at best, and flat out wrong, at worst. If anything, I would say that the reason most cases in the series are the way they are (if you ignore the obvious developmental & out of universe reasons, and just focus on in-universe) is the same reason why almost every case happens to also be one where the wrong suspect was arrested, and where the real murderer had some convoluted plan to frame someone, and why, despite it seeming as though literally every case involves some dramatic "accuse the third party" twist this is always considered shocking and not "the norm" (as is discussed in another headscratcher). They're extremely cherry-picked cases, taken by characters for extremely specific reasons, be them personal, or by happenstance, or because they're the protagonists, and so naturally the most ridiculous cases attract to them like iron fillings to a magnet. The bottom line, is that it's not like the cases we Phoenix and the others tackle are meant to be representative of the average spectrum of murders that occur within Los Angeles/Japanifornia. In fact it's pretty apparent that they basically make up the very top end insane cases that don't follow the "the norm" that most people are used to. |
| 63 | [[/folder]] |
| 64 | [[folder: Does murder=death penalty in ace attorney universe?]] |
| 65 | * Is the penalty for killing of ANY kind in the PW:AA universe death? Phoenix frequently says something like "the defendant's life is on the line here!" and it's implied that if Phoenix loses, his client will get the death penalty. This even applies if the death is accidental, or in self-defense (''even if the person being killed is a serial killer coming at you with a knife''). Prison sentences are never even brought up. |
| 66 | ** No one's sentence is ever shown or even implied apart from Manfred's and Dahlia's. Although even Manfred's sentence is never explicitly stated as being death, it's just said that he's "not around anymore". When Phoenix talks about the defendant's "life" being on the line, he's speaking metaphorically about how their life will be destroyed should they be found guilty. I mean, they will be sent to prison and they would be labelled a killer for their whole life, so their life IS on the line.\ |
| 67 | \ |
| 68 | Self-defence is pretty much stated too as being a legally justified killing and thus you won't go to prison for it. The reason Phoenix was determined to prove away the charge of self-defence was because copping to that would have been admitting that the defendant HAD killed someone and, even though they won't get jail time for it, they would be labelled a killer which would basically ruin their life. Plus, despite people wanting to believe that the law can't punish a kid for accidentally killing someone while in a life or death situation, the fact is that it can. I mean, you can call what Edgeworth did in case 1-4 different things – like self-defence, manslaughter etc., but it's clearly shown in case 2-2 that some one who commits a self-defence killing is still put on trial and prosecuted (this happens in real life as well if a prosecutor wants to press charges). It's just that, most likely, the defendant isn't given a sentence.\ |
| 69 | \ |
| 70 | Plus let's not forget that people seem to be forgetting that this is a VIDEO GAME SERIES. A bit of difference too the real world is only expected. You can't expect it to be 100% accurate. |
| 71 | ** The judge strongly implies that the default penalty for first-degree murder is death. That said, the characters in the ''Gyakuten Saiban'' games that likely got the death penalty are as follows: Redd White, Yanni Yogi, Manfred von Karma, Damon Gant, Mimi Miney, Acro (transferred intent)[[labelnote:†]] The crime itself was premeditated, but he hit the wrong target[[/labelnote]], debatably Matt Engarde (the game is unclear if murder-for-hire counts in the ''Ace Attorney'' universe – it definitely does in the real world), Dahlia Hawthorne, Luke Atmey, Furio Tigre, and Terry Fawles (never carried out). |
| 72 | *** It's confirmed in [=AAI2=] that Frank Sahwit did not get the death penalty, or even a life sentence, as his sentence is able to be extended in the post-game credits. So it's definitely possible for a convicted murderer to not be executed. |
| 73 | *** Acro might not have gotten the death penalty, as Edgworth suggested they go easy on him. |
| 74 | *** Acro's murder could also be counted as either second degree or voluntary manslaughter, as he intended to kill Regina, not Russell. |
| 75 | *** Tigre's murder was second degree, so he would not get the death penalty. |
| 76 | *** The culprit of 2-4 counts, since Phoenix tells Pearl that he'll be charged as if he himself committed the murder with his own two hands because he hired an assassin. Manfred was likely convicted for two murders; the murder of Gregory Edgeworth which was actually a second degree killing, since he decided on the spot to kill Gregory, and the first degree charge of Robert Hammond. He got charged for that one for similar reasons to Matt Engarde. According to ''Investigations 2'', persuading someone to kill someone else either by hire or by simply the power of suggestion, nets you with first degree murder charges. |
| 77 | *** Presumably Matt Engarde not only wasn't executed but knew in advance that he wouldn't be. There is nothing we're shown to suggest Shelly de Killer is a sadist. His choice appears to be living in jail or being set free and murdered in short order. Instead of being put to death for sure and living the rest of his life on the run from the world's best assassin. |
| 78 | ** In general, if you commit first degree murder you will be executed, but second degree (Frank Sahwit) and voluntary manslaughters get you a less severe sentence, like in real life. |
| 79 | ** No. Only certain murders. This is proven by Sirhan Dogen who, despite being an assassin who has killed countless people, has not been executed and is not on death row. It's likely that very few murders are the death penalty. |
| 80 | ** It's as is stated above. There has never been any indication in any of the games that all murders, or even that all first degree murders, are punished with the death penalty, and in fact there's been a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I can only assume that this misconception arises from a combination of exaggerated word of mouth, with false memories, and people for some reason having no concept of similes and use of figure-of-speeche (i.e., people taking statements like "their life will end", or, "their life is in my hands" ridiculously literally). That and, as shown above, a misinterpretation of what the Judge meant, or completely false memory on what he actually said, in the Stolen Turnabout. He specifically said that murder is a "capital crime, worthy of capital punishment", when explaining how murder is, obviously, much more serious then theft. Which is nowhere close to remotely implying that murder is anywhere close to always punished with death. All that means is that as far as the law is concerned, murder is a capital crime and so *can* be punished with death if need be. |
| 81 | [[/folder]] |
| 82 | [[folder: How are the Von Karmas allowed to be prosecutors?]] |
| 83 | * OK, so the justice system of the U.S./Japan has gotten to the point where trials always take three days... but what the heck happened that allows people like the Von Karmas to not only be prosecutors, but do things like whip the judge and witnesses? |
| 84 | ** Simply...IT'S A VIDEO GAME. The game's harsh legal system and tendency to have prosecutor's abuse go unpunished are both {{Take That}}s at the Japanese legal system prior to 2006, when the old system was still in place. Said system was infamous for its harshness against defence attorneys and laid-back court proceedings. |
| 85 | *** Lotta Hart indicates that prosecutors are NOT allowed to whip people, and tries to tell the judge, but he's too stupid to do anything about it (why she didn't have Phoenix or some other lawyer press charges against Franziska I will never know). |
| 86 | [[/folder]] |
| 87 | [[folder: Are there a non-meta reason why Rise from the ashes isn't mentioned?]] |
| 88 | * Is there a solid (non-meta) reason no one references the events of "Rise From the Ashes" in ''Justice for All''? |
| 89 | ** Nope. The only reason is that ''Justice For All'' was made & released for the GBA before they wrote "Rise from the Ashes" for the DS UpdatedRerelease of ''Phoenix Wright''. |
| 90 | ** It struck me as highly unfair for Phoenix to assume that Edgeworth left only because of his broken winning streak when he had, in 1-5, admitted to feeling guilt about his past actions and doubt over whether he could continue. Perhaps Phoenix not remembering this is proof that 1-5 was made later. |
| 91 | ** Probably one of the main things that confuses people on this is the fact that, at one point when Phoenix talks about Edgey leaving, when he says "that case", a picture of Edgey at the stand and von Karma at the prosecuting bench shows up, obviously referencing 1-4. If that had just been changed to show Edgeworth at the prosecution bench and, say, Lana or Gant on the witness stand, then we'd have a nice, clear reference to 1-5. |
| 92 | ** This is fixed in the HD trilogy, where they say "After one final case, he disappeared", or something along those lines |
| 93 | ** Rise From the Ashes was developed at the same time as Apollo Justice, which is the fourth game in the series. It was only released on physical copies of the first game after AJ came out. |
| 94 | [[/folder]] |
| 95 | [[folder: What is illegal in the ace attorney universe?]] |
| 96 | * What is considered illegal besides murder and theft? In "Farewell, My Turnabout", Adrian is definitely guilty of perjury and tampering with a crime scene. In "The Stolen Turnabout", she hasn't spent much (if any) time in prison. |
| 97 | ** According to the fourth game smuggling and forgery are crimes. |
| 98 | ** Why do people assume that because it's not been stated, it doesn't exist? Perjury is mentioned several times. |
| 99 | *** It could be that while perjury in the AA-verse is technically illegal, no one is ever actually charged with it. Several "crimes" in many U.S. states are treated like this. |
| 100 | ** It doesn't help that the witnesses who do lie in court rarely get punished for it. |
| 101 | *** The third case of ''Dual Destinies'' has a particularly flagrant example. One of the major sources of conflict is that all of the suspects are at a "law school" and being convicted of a criminal offense will permanently expel them. They then proceed to lie repeatedly on the stand about themselves and about their actions, up to and including claiming to have committed the murder. Yet the case ends with quite a few of the suspects happily continuing their law education. And yes, perjury ''is'' considered a criminal offense in real life. |
| 102 | *** They may simply have been given a slap on the wrist in the form of a lecture, as the students who committed perjury was doing so in an effort to keep someone who wasn't guilty from being prematurely committed. |
| 103 | ** Perjury is, yes, a crime but it's also one that's very hard to prove in most instances, as it typically requires establishing that the defendant ''knowingly'' gave false testimony. The actual murderers and accomplices may well be charged with (and convicted of) perjury off-screen, but convicting unhelpful witnesses would be trickier, and typically their testimony is needed to nail the true guilty party, so it wouldn't be surprising if they were offered immunity in exchange for turning state's evidence. The [=AA=] series is pretty ... lax about the rules of testimony to begin with, so applying Western (especially American) legal codes to the games is a recipe for a headache. |
| 104 | [[/folder]] |
| 105 | [[folder: What's the point of detectives when the lawyers do all the investigating?]] |
| 106 | * What's the point of having detectives around if the lawyers do all the investigating? Maybe they're not supposed to, but that doesn't stop the evidence from being accepted in court. |
| 107 | ** The prosecution generally relies on the police – Franziska gets irritated with Gumshoe in the second game for not noticing the hole in the sleeve, Godot gets upset that he wasn't told about the ketchup stain in the next game, etc. Also, even the defense occasionally needs someone to run extra tests for them, like with the analysis of the small bottle in the Tigre case. |
| 108 | *** Plus it's for gameplay purposes as well. It'd be pretty boring if you couldn't investigate, right? Also, in Japan, attorneys (at least prosecutors) DO have authority to investigate. |
| 109 | *** The detectives, from what I know, are the ones with access and permission to the laboratories (i.e., the CSI-level stuff like DNA and trace analyses) and a Prosecutor doing that stuff himself would yield inadmissible evidence. After the initial investigation with a prosecutor is over, the Detective is technically a neutral party and is able to help out anyone involved with the case at hand. |
| 110 | ** They aren't actually /supposed/ to, defense attorneys don't even have the right to access the crime scene. In the flashback crime in AAI-3, Miles and Franziska participate in the investigation as a learning exercise, and the detective actually protests against allowing them on the crime scene. And overall, the entire Thing of this series is that becuase of the ridiculously short time allotted for investigation, the system Does Not Work As Intended. I mean, Phoenix repeatedly commits what's robbery if not invasion of privacy to get evidence, and nobody gives a fuck because everybody knows that It's Just How It Works These Days. |
| 111 | [[/folder]] |
| 112 | [[folder: The 3 day trial system doesn't change efficiency?]] |
| 113 | * Basic one. This is in regards to the English translation... they say America moved to the new court system (three days, no trial by jury, etc.) to streamline trials because the caseload was too high. Okay, that's a weird rule in light of American jurisprudence and civil rights issues... but hey, this could be a dystopian near-future. Problem though: people who confess to their crimes (4-2, 3-2, 1-4, for instance) still get their day in court and still have to go through the motions of a trial. This implies the functional abolition of the plea bargain. Since between 80%-90+% of all cases (depending on jurisdiction) are resolved by plea bargain, and of the cases that do go to trial most are already finished within a few days anyway (although with much more lead-up investigation than in the AA universe). How is this in any way functional? Justice and civil rights have already taken a beating, but even the argument of efficiency is now trashed. |
| 114 | ** Plea bargains still exist. Franziska was saying Phoenix would be asking for one within 10 minutes at the start of the 2-2 trial, which means that it's up to the attorney to decide to go for one, even if the client wants to confess and that's why it hasn't come up in any of Phoenix or Apollo's trials. |
| 115 | *** Franziska said Phoenix would be changing his plea from "not guilty" to "not guilty by reason of self-defense". That's not a plea ''bargain'', that's just a ''plea''. She predicted Phoenix would change course because it was "impossible" for anyone but Maya to have killed the victim; however, if Phoenix claimed Maya did it in self-defense, then the trial's burden of proof would shift to the defense – Phoenix would have to prove that Maya had no criminal intent. Technically easier for Phoenix to pull off, but it would still brand Maya as a criminal, which he was obviously unwilling to do. |
| 116 | ** I do believe Lana mentions having a plea bargain by name in 1-5. |
| 117 | ** Finally, remember that – localization aside – this series is at heart a huge TakeThat to the Japanese legal system, which has a ''completely'' different base than America's. Japan doesn't really have plea bargains. |
| 118 | ** Once you get your sentence, that's it, even if it's for petty theft. |
| 119 | *** The three-day trials aren't final. The three-day trial system is called the "Initial Trial System" in 1-2, and if you get a guilty verdict, the judge says "The defendant will surrender [themself] to the court's care... ...to undergo a regular trial at the High Court within a month's time." It seems that the 3-day trials are preliminary trials, and are (presumably) used as evidence in trials in the High Court if the defendant is found guilty in the initial trial. |
| 120 | [[/folder]] |
| 121 | [[folder: Why does Franziska still idolize her father?]] |
| 122 | * Why does Franziska continue to idolize her father well after everyone and their mother found out he was a batshit insane murderer? |
| 123 | ** It's not her father that she idolizes, it's her family name. She confesses that she doesn't really give a damn about what happened to Manfred, so her pursuit of perfection is likely the result of indoctrination and her sense of honour. |
| 124 | *** [[FridgeBrilliance By getting caught, he's no longer perfect and is a disgrace to the family name, so she thinks very little of him these days.]] |
| 125 | *** However, the end of T&T hints that she was very saddened by her father's death. Also, in the second case of AAI, she calls her father invincible and seems confused when Miles says he wasn't. |
| 126 | *** I read that scene as Franziska having a Very Awkward Realization of what she just said and to whom. She changes the topic immediately, too, giving in to Miles. Old habits die hard, is all. |
| 127 | *** Well, he ''did'' have that 40-year win streak. And even if he's crazy, he ''is'' still her dad. Franziska probably still cares a little bit about Manfred deep down even if she doesn't approve of him being a murderer. |
| 128 | ** I think you really have to look into her character to understand why. Before I answer you, let me talk about Franziska for a moment. It's really hard to notice it, but Manfred was, despite how he acted in relation to his work, probably a pretty decent family man. He speaks highly of his wife (in [=AAI2=]) without any real prompting, and will let Franziska do things he won't let Miles do. Considering his career is largely in America, he also flew to Germany just to see her first trial just because she asked him to. As noted in several places on the site, he seemed almost proud of Miles despite himself, and it's worth mentioning he cares about his granddaughter, too. Franziska was probably a DaddysGirl growing up, going off how he treats her in AAI.\ |
| 129 | \ |
| 130 | Now, Franziska shows a few times that she doesn't have a firm grasp on how the world works nor on emotion. It's simultaneously cute, funny, and ''very'' sad when she shows these moments. They show that from birth, she's been devoting her whole life to becoming someone her father can be proud of and pay attention to, and neglects other points in her life for it. That's something a child wouldn't do unless they're trying desperately to get attention, from which it can be guessed that her father paid more attention to Miles than her. This is backed by her own claim that she ''isn't'' a genius, but she ''had to be one anyway''. Miles was a genius, as was her father. There's also the very strong implication that she suffers an InferioritySuperiorityComplex thanks to them both. She wanted her father's love and attention, which meant she probably loved him very, very much. Not only was he her father, but he was her idol and ''hero''.\ |
| 131 | \ |
| 132 | Don't forget that for almost 18 years, she genuinely thought he was in the right, and that all defendants really ''were'' guilty. He was probably a hero to her. Now, to answer your question: I think she's probably not quite come to terms with her father's conviction and death, and stating that he's unworthy of the family name, and Miles too, is part of her aforementioned superiority inferiority complex, because as far as I remember, she doesn't do it until after she herself is "no longer worthy", i.e., after she loses to Phoenix. It's also plausible that she's very much in denial at the same time that her father ''really was'' a killer, since for her whole life she's been taught that defense attorneys are the bad guys who protect criminals. I could probably talk more about how I interpret her. |
| 133 | *** It's also worth mentioning that by the second ''Investigations'' game, she's come to terms with what kind of person her father was. She avoids mentioning him except when offering what can only be advice to the distraught Yumihiko and cuts herself off when she starts to talk about the family name. Instead, she refers to prosecuting and herself as the things he's betraying and abandoning. [=AAI2=] also shows us that Franziska ''was'' rather blind to the things her father did. She was visibly shocked and horrified at the idea that her father could have forged evidence, which means that she never knew that he didn't just use dirty-but-legal tricks, like she had in Case 2-2, but that Manfred did illegal things like manipulate evidence and witnesses. It's also possible, based on her reaction, that Franziska never knew about DL-6. Had she been told about that, she'd know her father was a liar who manipulated evidence by either stealing it, destroying it, or concealing it. Further, she would have wanted to know the motive her father had for killing Gregory, which would mean she'd already know his black mark came from it being proven that the autopsy report he presented was fake. |
| 134 | [[/folder]] |
| 135 | [[folder: What's Miles' living situation post DL-6?]] |
| 136 | * Where was Miles' living and with whom after DL-6? The games state that von Karma took Miles "under his wing" but deliberately avoid any reference to his adoption or foster care, and in ''Investigations'' Edgeworth implies that he wasn't living with the von Karmas prior to his first case. Even if he had stayed with the von Karmas, what was he doing during Manfred's six-month "vacation"? |
| 137 | ** By first case, do you mean the one that didn't end up happening in Investigations, or the one where he faced Mia? Assuming the former here... If I'm remembering correctly, the implication isn't so much "Edgeworth wasn't living with the von Karmas" as "Franziska wasn't living with Edgeworth". I'm guessing that Manfred was training Edgeworth at the time and Franziska was in boarding school in Germany. She says she's in America for "summer vacation". |
| 138 | *** I'm sure he was living with the von Karma's. But during his first featured investigation it's shown that Franziska is here on vacation like the troper above said. So yeah, I'm sure he was under Manfred's wing, so too speak. |
| 139 | ** While not canon to the games, it might be worth noting that the anime goes with Miles living with the von Karmas after DL-6. |
| 140 | ** Regarding where Miles was during Manfred's six-month vacation, it could be that he was either in an orphanage or still having his living situation figured out by the authorities and bouncing homes between his relatives and/or father's associates that weren't working out for whatever reason (maybe they had a hard time dealing with a recently traumatized child?) so von Karma might have heard of this and decided to take advantage of it after finishing his "vacation". The anime that unambiguously has Miles living with the von Karma's after the incident doesn't have this issue though due to reducing the six-month vacation to one day. |
| 141 | *** On that note, Manfred being on "vacation" doesn't necessarily mean he couldn't have taken in Miles during those six months. From what we are told, it seems this type of vacation only meant he wasn't working, so it's not impossible for Edgeworth to have started living with the von Karmas during the vacation. |
| 142 | [[/folder]] |
| 143 | [[folder: Why was Manfred allowed to take in Miles?]] |
| 144 | * It seems to be accepted in the headscratcher above that Miles lived with the von Karmas after DL-6 and this is explicitly shown to be the case in the anime (which while not canon to the video games still counts as a headscratcher for the anime specifically). Even if no official adoption happened, why did no one object to Manfred taking Miles considering how he and Gregory were court enemies (and very much not of the FriendlyRival variety)? Assuming Edgeworth didn't have any close relatives who could take him in, wouldn't Gregory at least have friends of his own who could? Gregory was a lawyer, so wouldn't he of all people have written a will directing who would take his son? |
| 145 | [[/folder]] |
| 146 | [[folder: Lack of conflict of interest?]] |
| 147 | * Is there no such thing as "conflict of interest" in the game's legal system? Aside from Phoenix defending in cases where the victim is his employer or the defendant is his employee, we have Manfred von Karma prosecuting his adopted son, Edgeworth sitting opposite his "little sister" Franziska in 3-5, and in 4-3 we have Apollo defending in a case where he discovered the body, and Klavier prosecuting a case where both the defendant and the real guilty party are both band mates of his. |
| 148 | ** Being related isn't a problem as long as they aren't involved in the case. Von Karma wasn't actively involved in Edgeworth's case until it turned out he was behind it all at the very end. Franziska and Edgeworth might be siblings, but neither one of them was actually involved in the 3-5 case. As for Apollo Justice, that particular case was a special one. It was implied that they wanted the case over and done with as quickly as possible, which is why they allowed for someone who found the body to defend, and someone who was a part of the case to prosecute. As it stands, Apollo was the only one who would defend Machi, at any rate. |
| 149 | *** Still, sometimes Phoenix would have been more useful (*cough* 1-2, 2-2 *cough*) if he was not the defense. That way he could testify as an 'unbiased' witness for the defendant. |
| 150 | *** The same goes for Apollo in 4-3. But that case also reveals a problem with the setup: the court was hesitant to accept Lamiroir's testimony at face value because she was a friend of the defendant. Wouldn't they say the same thing about Phoenix testifying on Maya's behalf? |
| 151 | ** If ''Gyakuten Kenji 2'' is any indication, absolutely not. Apparently judges assigned to cases the prosecution is investigating can accompany them to the scene during their investigations and also serve in the trial for that case without squalor. |
| 152 | ** There actually is such a thing as conflict of interest, since it's brought up on a number of occasions (some of which have been stated by previous tropers just above). The issue comes with how lax they seem to be on following them. Presumably it exists in some form, although it seems like it's the job of the prosecution/defense to actually bring it up and claim that the conflict is at play. Klavier brings it up specifically for Lamiroir, and Lamiroir herself even questions it when it comes to being a jurist for Vera's trial. In the latter instance Phoenix loopholes it (she wasn't involved in the "development" of the case specifically so it's technically fine), and in the former the court accepts that it is conflict of interest. |
| 153 | [[/folder]] |
| 154 | [[folder: Steel samurai; Massive following but cancelled after 13 episodes]] |
| 155 | * Steel Samurai seems to have a massive following both among kids and adults during its run time, a lot of publicity events and a ''theme park''. Why spend so much on all that only to cancel it after 13 episodes? |
| 156 | ** Yeah, it's not like [[Series/{{Firefly}} there could be any such thing as a TV series that developed a major fandom despite being cancelled after 13 episodes...]] |
| 157 | ** No, but it is mentioned in 2-4 that there are multiple shows taking place in the same universe that were produced and aired after the cancellation. Looks like Steel Samurai wasn't the first show in it, just the one that brought in the most new fans at the time. |
| 158 | ** Alternately, it wasn't just "Episode 13". It was "Season [whatever], Episode 13", and the show's been running for years. Certainly no one in-universe talks about the show like it's brand-new. |
| 159 | ** Just like any Japanese anime, the Steel Samurai seasons never get mentioned and don't really matter. |
| 160 | ** It's also possible the episodes are actually longer than the standard half-hour or hour runtime, similar to ''Series/{{Sherlock}}'', so the 13 episodes total up to 26 episodes worth of runtime or more. Kids do watch movies, so it's not too much to assume they'd watch an hour and a half-long TV serial. If each episode is like a movie, and it takes the world by storm, it's not hard to believe. Plus, well... if a small ''hotel'' can get a theme park (remember, Gatewater started out as just the one hotel), so can a 13-episode sentai series. |
| 161 | ** This retroactively seems to be a case of HarsherInHindsight[=/=]LifeImitatesArt because modern day extremely popular shows are getting cancelled left and right in real life for tax write-offs (which retroactively makes Global Studios not just a FictionalCounterpart to Universal, but to Warner Bros as well). With that in mind it's not absurd to think that Global cancelled the Steel Samurai for tax purposes after the lawsuits to recoup the money lost, but kept working in the same universe as the Steel Samurai, just like Warner with DC. |
| 162 | [[/folder]] |
| 163 | [[folder: How do testimonies and cross-examinations work in universe?]] |
| 164 | * So, testimonies and cross-examinations. What's the deal with them? It always seems like the witness first gives the testimony, then everyone talks about it for a bit, then you get to cross-examine... in which the witness gives the same exact testimony again only you get to butt in with "Hold it!"s and "Objection!"s. And often, when you press things (especially those statements that often come at the beginning of testimonies that don't give you any information) the characters talk as if the cross-examination was the first time hearing the testimony. What's going on here? |
| 165 | ** AcceptableBreaksFromReality, just go with it. It's a video game after all, mate... |
| 166 | ** My personal interpretation has always been that the testimony only happens once and the cross-examination portion is simply for gameplay purposes, to allow the player to select the part they want to press or object to. |
| 167 | *** If the anime is anything to go by, this is exactly what happens. Perhaps an in-universe reason is that the lawyer goes back on the testimony in his head. |
| 168 | [[/folder]] |
| 169 | [[folder: Why was the trial not cancelled in turnabout reminiscence?]] |
| 170 | * If the trial was cancelled in "Turnabout Beginnings" due to the defendant being dead, why didn't the same thing happen in "Turnabout Reminiscence"? |
| 171 | ** It wasn't cancelled but Von Karma says that it has been put on hold indefinitely, which amounts to the same thing actually... |
| 172 | ** If Fawles lived, he would be not guilty. Edgeworth got the win, but at the cost of having to see the defendant die in court. |
| 173 | [[/folder]] |
| 174 | [[folder: Will the rules of presenting evidence/profiles ever be consistent?]] |
| 175 | * Will the rules of presenting evidence/profiles ever be consistent? In the first game, you could only present evidence unless a person is requested. The second game allows presenting a person's profiles. The third game covers Mia's first two cases, before Phoenix ever took up the mantle, but she was allowed to present people as well. ''Apollo Justice'' goes back to the rules of the first game. Who makes the rules?!? |
| 176 | ** AcceptableBreaksFromReality. It's not the law of what can be presented. It's that in games 2 and 3 they added presenting profiles, then in game 4 they took it out again because it made it too complicated. That's all... |
| 177 | [[/folder]] |
| 178 | [[folder: The defendant's testimony validity in investigations vs main games]] |
| 179 | * One of the odder new aspects of the third game was the heightened tendency for characters to cross-examine the defendant, mostly because this forced the defense attorneys to point out contradictions and thus hurt their own case. This continued in ''Apollo Justice'', to the point that calling upon the defendant to testify is the final solution to case 3. So how does this mesh with the constant tendency in ''Investigations'' for the opponent to dismiss every immediate suspect's statements on the grounds that they'd say anything to protect themselves? If that's true, then no one should have cross-examined them at all! |
| 180 | ** Well, in real court systems, the defendant is allowed to speak in their own defense. They may not be believed, but they can do it. |
| 181 | *** Not if they have a competent defence attorney. |
| 182 | *** Plus the prosecution is simply trying to get a theory across. It's not like it's illegal to call the defendant to testify, seeing as how they are not a prosecution witness and thus were not promoted by them. In court, they call the defendant and get the defendant to reveal stuff that's negative to their case. In ''Investigations'', they are dismissing the suspect being allowed to testify because what they will reveal is positive to their case. It makes sense in court that the defendants won't lie about something negative so it makes perfect sense that they should be believed. |
| 183 | *** I sense there's a language barrier issue here, but in the Western world, ''no defendant can ever be called to testify by the state'' (at least not in criminal proceedings). Should you find yourself on trial, your basic rights are: (1) the right to cross-examine witnesses (i.e., the prosecution's case); (2) the right to a trial by jury; and (3) the right to refrain from self-incrimination. Prosecutors work for the nation-state and the government cannot, cannot, ''cannot'' compel a defendant to testify. The mechanics of gameplay force this because you can only play the cross-examination, but if a defendant were to testify, they would never be called by the prosecution. They would testify after the prosecution made its case, then be cross-examined by a prosecutor after giving their testimony.\ |
| 184 | \ |
| 185 | This is a ''huge'' problem for American players, as it's a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Since the defendant cannot testify for the prosecution (i.e., give testimony or evidence against him or herself), the defendant is ''always'' the defense's witness. You can't cross-examine your own witness by definition[[note]] Even if you have permission to treat the witness as hostile on direct, that's not cross-examination[[/note]]. More to the point, defense attorneys will usually do everything in their power to keep their clients from testifying because it's ''a terrible idea''. |
| 186 | [[/folder]] |
| 187 | [[folder: What is Edgeworth's hair color?]] |
| 188 | * What ''is'' Edgeworth's hair color? In the sprites, it's grey, but in the pictures it's brown! What the heck? |
| 189 | ** Even weirder, in some of the sprites, Edgeworth's hair looks like a dark enough shade of gray to pass off as black to this troper. |
| 190 | ** Hm... I'd say that most likely, his hair is supposed to be dark brown. I've seen people who have dark brown hair that looks both black and dark grey in certain lighting, just like how someone with blond/blonde hair can look like their hair is brown, red, or auburn depending on the lighting and the shade of blond/blonde their hair is normally. I have a friend whose brown hair is so soft and shiny that it looks grey in certain lighting. So, it's possible the considerable shading (or shine, rather) on his hair is meant to imply his hair is supposed to be naturally very soft and sleek. |
| 191 | ** Cut scenes in ''Dual Destinies'' seem to confirm that his hair is black/dark grey. |
| 192 | [[/folder]] |
| 193 | [[folder: Defence lawyer's word is just as valid as the prosecutions?]] |
| 194 | * Why is the defense lawyer's word taken just like any other testimony against the prosecution? In multiple cases, Phoenix rebuts the prosecution's argument with something like, "The defendant was at place X that night, and he was seen there by the most reliable witness I know: myself!" But surely the defendant's lawyer would be considered to have an agenda here – the prosecution at the very least should point out that Phoenix might as well be lying to protect his client. |
| 195 | ** This actually gets brought up in ''Apollo Justice'' – in "Turnabout Serenade", Apollo is the only one who heard Mr. [=LeTouse=]'s last words, and Klavier points out that Apollo could well be lying about that to help his case, since there is no evidence for what he said, save for Apollo's word. |
| 196 | *** As stated above. Plus I only recall this happening once, on this one occasion so I don't know what you're on about... |
| 197 | *** There are a number of minor instances throughout the series. For one example in case 3-3, Phoenix proves that Glen's body must have been moved into the restaurant's kitchen at one point by presenting a bottle of his ear medicine that was found in there among the smelling oils. Just one problem. The detectives didn't find it. The prosecutor didn't find it (he wasn't even in the initial investigation). Phoenix just walked in, found the bottle and took it. How can the court simply accept his claim that it was in the kitchen at all? (Even disregarding the question of how this counts as proof, especially considering that the restaurant's owner is a kleptomaniac) |
| 198 | ** This setting's legal system is Badly Broken. It's a stereotype that both prosecutors and defense lawyers forge evidence, as the legal system makes it VERY EASY for them to do so. We know evidence law from 1-5, and it's absolutely ridiculous. Tl;dr: no, it doesn't make sense, and it makes sense in-universe that it doesn't. |
| 199 | *** I don't exactly get your point about evidence law from 1-5 being "ridiculous". I'm pretty sure two standard rules are not the entire basis of evidence submission in the Ace Attorney world, that would be reaching astronomically stupid levels. They're just two of the base rules. |
| 200 | [[/folder]] |
| 201 | [[folder: Why are Lawyers not allowed during their clients questioning?]] |
| 202 | * One thing that occurred to me was that in all of the games (well... the first three, anyway. Haven't finished the fourth yet), you can't see your client when they're being taken in for questioning. Are the clients not allowed to request for a lawyer (i.e., you) to be present during the questionings? If so, why haven't any of the clients requested this? |
| 203 | ** Takes place in Japan, localization notwithstanding. Questioning is restricted to detectives or prosecutors in Japan. |
| 204 | ** In 1-5, Phoenix calls his own witness, which is a rarity as prosecutors usually call witnesses. |
| 205 | [[/folder]] |
| 206 | [[folder: No one seeing culprits moving the evidence?]] |
| 207 | * In the third case of ''Apollo'', and fifth of ''Investigations'', how did the killers do so much moving around of bodies and other evidence without anyone seeing? I can buy that Alba could have just told everyone to vacate the Rose Garden when he dropped Coachen's body into the pool, since being able to order everyone to get off his country's soil seems to be one of his ambassadorial powers, but how did Yew retrieve the body at the other end without anyone seeing? Was no-one fighting the fire from the ground? And what did she do with the Steel Samurai's cart afterwards? Plus, how did no-one notice the giant length of wire that was shot between buildings? And in ''Apollo'', I could see that it would be possible for Daryan to move the body, guitar, and Machi without anyone noticing, but it's such a big risk; why would he even try? The only thing he had to gain from doing it was matching the lyrics to throw everyone off; hardly an essential part of his plan. Also, what did he actually do to Machi? Hit him over the head? Chloroform him? What? |
| 208 | ** In terms of case 3 in ''Apollo Justice'', Daryan only just found out that his crimes (stealing the guitar case, burning the guitar, murder) had coincidentally followed the lyrics so he JUST got the idea to move the body. He needed some way to throw the lyric thing into the 180 so he moved the body to match the last part of the lyrics. In terms of how no one noticed in case 5 of Investigations, I'd guess the EXACT timeline of events would explain it. I think the fire that made the body smuggling possible was the first one which was on the upper floors. Let's not forget that it's stated there was hours between all the events that happened. It's possible Yew stayed in the passageway until the fire-fighters had gone (between the first fire and second fire occurring) and made a dash then. As for the wire that no one saw, you'd be surprised how hard it is too see a length of thing wire, especially one that's high up several floors. |
| 209 | [[/folder]] |
| 210 | [[folder: Why is a homicide detective in charge of theft and kidnapping cases?]] |
| 211 | * Gumshoe's profile identifies him as a homicide detective; this makes sense given the series tradition for AlwaysMurder. But then... why is he put in charge of a theft (3-2), and why is he involved in a kidnapping case (I-3)? |
| 212 | ** I think Phoenix actually asks Gumshoe this very question in 3-2, but I'm not sure what his response is. |
| 213 | ** Simply put: It's not uncommon for homicide detectives to take up other cases if the police are shorthanded. And in response to the comment above, Phoenix actually asks Gumshoe why he is on the case and he replies by saying that "They needed all the help they could get with casing Mask☆[=DeMasque=]". |
| 214 | [[/folder]] |
| 215 | [[folder: Why do only certain characters get voiced take that's and hold it's?]] |
| 216 | * Why is it that only Phoenix, Edgeworth, Mia, and Apollo are the only ones given vocals for their "Take That"s and "Hold It"s? Why is it that the secondary characters just get the bubbles? I know they're only secondary characters, compared to the four playable ones mentioned above, but it would be awesome to give everyone a voice. |
| 217 | ** It would take the surprise out of the moments when someone yell's "HOLD IT!" or "OBJECTION!" and they have the epic shocks on everyone's faces before finally revealing who it is that saved the day. |
| 218 | *** Every defense attorney and every prosecutor has got one (the only exception being Lang and Alba but they're a detective and a big bad who get to yell it a lot so they get a pass), so it's not like it doesn't follow rules. Plus, the VisualNovel/PhoenixWrightTrilogy was already pushing the limits of their original GBA carts and not being too much kinder to their DS cards. Voices for everyone, most of which you'd only hear once or twice, it wouldn't be worth the space. |
| 219 | [[/folder]] |
| 220 | [[folder: Why do Characters yell take that's at everything?]] |
| 221 | * Why do the four mentioned feel the need to yell "Take That" at everything they point out? [[RuleOfCool I know it's more exciting that way]], but for example, at the end of 3-2, Phoenix shows Ron why Dessie would stay with him by showing him the urn. Does he need to yell, "TAKE THAT!" at him?! |
| 222 | ** I'm now imagining him mumbling about how he never wanted to take such [[color:gray:a worthless ob]][[color:silver:ject at all]] |
| 223 | ** I always thought the whole thing was a GameplayAndStorySegregation given that at one point in 1-5, Phoenix was supposed to present evidence to the judge. When you presented the wrong evidence he yells "TAKE THAT" and yet Phoenix doesn't say anything out loud and the judge penalized him for ''taking too long''. |
| 224 | ** Unfortunatlely, Ron [=DeLite=] does this twice, with the first lengthening the trial to another day. |
| 225 | *** There's a weird habit through the games of treating the habit of the BigShoutOut rather flippantly. A lot of the time the games portray them as stated above, as though they're GameplayAndStorySegregation. This is even seen with "Objection!" a lot, where a character has quite clearly shouted it out yet the way it's portrayed makes it seem like they just interrupted the proceedings without saying a word, or an attorney will follow on their objection with something that'd be incredibly redundant/odd sounding given the objection, such as "Objection! I-I object to that!". At other times though, it's portrayed as not being game and story segregation, as someone asks "w-who was that 'objection' just now?", or some such, and clearly the attorneys are raising actual objections. When applied to the other shout outs including "Take that!" it just becomes too confusing to even warrant thinking about too much. Personally I'd just assume that they're not actually saying it if a situation makes it pretty obvious the character wouldn't actually do as such. Basically just apply a bit of common sense to it. |
| 226 | [[/folder]] |
| 227 | [[folder: No courthouse surveillance or security?]] |
| 228 | * Does the courthouse have any security or surveillance whatsoever, aside from the courtroom bailiff? I'm looking at three specific situations here. 1)The very beginning of 2-1, in which a witness strikes the defense lawyer over the head with a fire extinguisher in plain sight in the defense lobby, and no one witnesses it. 2)In ''Apollo Justice'''s fourth case flashback, the defendant flees the courtroom, and only the courtroom's bailiff is involved in the pursuit. 3)In ''Investigations'' case 4, the only witness to anything happening in the courthouse hallway is a judge using the bathroom in the opposite wing. Admittedly, you can't always prevent these kinds of things from happening in the courthouse, but these events go almost completely unnoticed. |
| 229 | ** In case 2-1 it's possible that it happened in a resting place for attorneys. Sure it's still a court but it's not TOO far of a stretch to imagine that a attorney lobby would not have cameras. Besides this, the series is based on the Japanese courts, which are a lot more lenient on security then American courts due to Japan's famously low crime rate. Also it's a game about solving stuff. It would be no fun if there was no mystery to it all. And as revealed in Ace Attorney Investigations, the defendant rooms have sound-proof walls to prevent information from leaking. Phoenix or the guard leaving a door unlocked spelled disaster, as all the attacker needed to do was sneak in, close the door, and then bash Phoenix over the head before the latter could scream for help. |
| 230 | *** Well that aside, it's a game about investigating crimes. I'd be no fun if you could just watch the video to see what happened. |
| 231 | ** Judging from 5-1... NO. Just no. That case just takes that question, bashes it over the head and burns the body. A witness brings a bomb to the stand, which everyone intially thinks is real. After the witness assures everyone it's fake, he's allowed to KEEP it, apparently without any examination, because later in the trial he threatens everyone with it, proclaiming it's actually real. The reaction to that? EVERYONE FLEES, except the judge, the prosecutor and the defense team. It's somehow up to PHOENIX to neutralize the threat by calling the witness's bluff. Just... wow. That fucking case. |
| 232 | *** Well the witness ''was'' a bomb squad member, and in the context of the trial he had brought the replica bomb as evidence. It's not exactly absurd for them to let him keep it. In fact you'd imagine he'd be the one person they ''would'' let keep it. And Phoenix doesn't ''have'' to call him out, he just decides to. One can assume that the guards were ready to act, but you know, he had a bomb and was threatening to detonate it if anyone did anything. There wasn't much they ''could'' do until Phoenix proved it was a fake. After all, if a bailiff shot the suspect and the bomb happened to be real, everyone would be doomed. |
| 233 | [[/folder]] |
| 234 | [[folder: What do cross-examinations and rebuttals look like in universe?]] |
| 235 | * In ''Ace Attorney'''s world, what do cross-examinations and rebuttals look like? I mean, gameplay-wise, you have the witness's testimony, and you scroll piece by piece trying to find the contradiction, but for the people on trial, do they make them repeat the same thing over and over again? Just to have some guy in a suit to yell at you? That sort of makes attorneys seem like royal jackasses. |
| 236 | ** 1) This same question has been asked before. 2) AcceptableBreaksFromReality. Deal with it people. |
| 237 | *** You can compare it to when you talk to an NPC in an RPG: they say the exact same thing every time you talk to them without anyone pointing out how it's rather odd, and the players are (not unreasonably) expected to just ignore it seeing as the alternative would be only having one chance to digest the information, and being screwed if you happen to zone out during the fact. |
| 238 | [[/folder]] |
| 239 | [[folder: Why did Turnabout showtime's culprit confess?]] |
| 240 | * This one is in the manga, not the games, but in 'Turnabout Showtime' (I think that's what it's called) the culprit (Raymond Spume) confesses so easily when all Wright did was outline what happened using circumstantial evidence? Am I missing something, but what was the decisive proof? |
| 241 | ** Most of the case until then had focused on accusing Julie because she was the only one who could use her hands. Phoenix, by pointing out that costumes could be removed by oneself, that they could be worn backwards and that because Raymond saw something that should have been behind him and Flip did a back flip instead of a front flip, they were wearing them backwards, disproved some of the assumptions that cast suspicion on Julie. This, apart from her breakup and the false testimony about her putting a knife into the costume, was the only evidence against her, and as Raymond's plan to frame her was falling apart while he started to look more suspicious with the new information, he broke down. |
| 242 | [[/folder]] |
| 243 | [[folder: Why is the witness being the culprit such a surprise?]] |
| 244 | * Why does the court always act so surprised when a defense attorney [[AccuseTheWitness accuses a witness of being the actual guilty party]]? Considering it's the ''only'' way any defendant in the entire franchise has ever been found not guilty, you'd think it would be acknowledged as a standard defense tactic by now. Not doing so would be seen as not even trying to do their job. |
| 245 | ** I always assumed that the cases that get showcased in the games are probably the most dramatic and unusual examples. Even Phoenix Wright probably does other cases than the ones we see – his practice would be pretty much unsustainable otherwise, considering that he doesn't even seem to get paid for half of them... |
| 246 | *** A defense attorney doesn't HAVE to win a case by accusing someone else. In several cases, it's shown that a defendant can be declared innocent even while there are no other suspects. Plus I think the above troper is right, the cases that are shown are the most dramatic and strange cases, as evidenced when the Judge says that "Somehow the cases with you in them are the most strange, Mr. Wright." |
| 247 | *** Then by all means explain why case 3-5 didn't end as soon as Dahlia was exorcised and Iris's involvement in Misty's death was found to be nothing more than helping move the body. Godot literally says that the trial can't end until the actual murderer is determined. |
| 248 | *** Really now, it should be obvious why Godot didn't want to let the trial end. |
| 249 | *** However, a judge who doesn't possess Godot's knowledge of the murderer's identity (or indeed know that he knows at all; at this point, none of them were aware that Godot had been there at all) would probably want to give Iris a verdict and then let the police obtain a new suspect before continuing the deliberations. But he doesn't, and indeed she still gets the guilty verdict if Phoenix can't identify the murderer during that trial. |
| 250 | *** The Judge in Phoenix's cases is easily swayed by the opinions of others, and frequently bows to the will of the prosecutor. If Godot says, "This case isn't over", Phoenix's Judge is going to smile, nod, and say, "That's right, this case isn't over. ...um... Why isn't this case over?" and then accept Godot's answer and keep rolling the case. |
| 251 | *** Godot's answer was essentially "because Trite's inability to name the murderer proves his incompetence." That's a pretty lame reason to keep the trial going, even for this Judge. |
| 252 | ** Considering that – as has been mentioned multiple times throughout this page – ''Ace Attorney'''s court system is based on Japan's, it's not a stretch to think that "reasonable doubt" is not enough to acquit a defendant. |
| 253 | *** Even worse, failing to nail the perp in the Ace Attorney universe would result in the perp doing something else like setting up Phoenix's demise, just to keep the truth forever unknown. Once the cat's out of the bag, it can't go back. |
| 254 | [[/folder]] |
| 255 | [[folder: Why does Phoenix only act as a defense attorney?]] |
| 256 | * Why does Phoenix Wright only act as Defense Attorney? I'm fairly certain that Lawyers usually don't only act on one side or the other for their entire career; I know of a few attorneys that have been both a prosecutor and a defense attorney and go back and forth regularly. Is Mr. Wright afraid that he will wrongfully convict someone if he ever acts as a prosecutor? |
| 257 | ** I hate to tell you this, but you are '''''wrong''''' on this one. In criminal proceedings (which is what we see Phoenix doing), you only have prosecution and defense. Prosecutors are agents of the State – in Japan, they're hired by Judges; in many American jurisdictions they're elected (or hired by elected district attorneys) – and, as such, are subject to different requirements and criteria than defense attorneys. The Japanlike nation in which Phoenix lives appears to have completely different licenses for attorneys and prosecutors as well; Edgeworth has a Prosecutor's Badge which is a wholly separate thing from Phoenix's Attorney's Badge, and Edgeworth actually had to borrow Phoenix's badge to impersonate a defense attorney during the final case of T&T. The games make it pretty clear that there is no crossover between the two types of lawyer under the judicial system they operate in. |
| 258 | *** In real life, part of training to be an attorney requires knowing how procedure works on ''all'' sides (that way, you can raise sustainable objections or appeal when someone screws up), so if you pass the bar you are qualified to conceivably play any role in the legal system. But considering that judges and prosecutors are both under employ of the State (and are often elected, at least in the States), those aren't jobs you can just hop into or out of on a whim. |
| 259 | ** My dad is a defense attorney, and has been for 23 years, and he has never acted as a prosecutor... I'm not saying it never happens, but most lawyers I know stick with what they know. Prosecutors are government employees, and my dad prefers to be self-employed. |
| 260 | ** Plus, over the first three games, Phoenix was a lawyer for ~3 years, until Shadi Enigmar came along. All of the cases we get to play are probably the only cases he has ever taken. No matter how good he is, he still has little experience. Also, take Phoenix's personality. While he stands to always help those that need defending, he gets really down and nervous when things start to go wrong. It's more in character for him to stick with what he knows, which he even admits he doesn't fully know being a Defense Attorney very well, either. |
| 261 | *** It is explicitly stated that the five cases in the first game were the only trials he had to that point. But it's ''also'' stated that after "Rise from the Ashes", he started taking work again. Beyond those, we just don't know if he took cases beyond what we get to see or not. That supplementary material (the manga) exists suggests he does. Besides, even for attorneys like Phoenix that focus on criminal law, the majority of their work – if they want to be able to pay their bills – will be incredibly mundane things involving lots of paperwork.[[note]] Despite Phoenix being referred to by some characters as an ambulance-chaser, he has never been shown to work personal injury cases – those are usually done on contingency, thus high-risk high-reward. Criminal cases can earn a defense attorney a lot of money, ''if'' their client gets off (thus can pay) ''and'' is wealthy. Unfortunately, only some of Phoenix's clients – Edgeworth, Will Powers, Max Galactica – really fit that description; Maya is only wealthy through her family (do you really think Morgan would acknowledge his invoices? I don't, especially not after he got her locked up for being an accomplice to murder).[[/note]] |
| 262 | [[/folder]] |
| 263 | [[folder: Underage accidental killing consequences?]] |
| 264 | * What would happen if someone who was underage accidentally killed someone? What if Edgeworth really shot his father or Ema accidentally killed Marshall? Would they be put on trial and go to jail if they were guilty? It bothers me since people seemed to make a big deal over it (Gregory blamed it on Yogi while Lana covered up for her sister). Why? What's the worst that could happen? Can't they get away with it being "accident" and "they're underage" thing? It bothers me since this theme keeps continuing... |
| 265 | ** It's hard to say exactly what would happen to them. Given that the people who did the cover-ups were very close to the children in question though, the reason they probably do it is out of fear of additional repercussions that might happen. A child may not go to prison, but they'd probably have to go through most of their life known as "that dangerous and creepy kid who killed daddy/mommy/her sister's co-worker". Not to mention, Edgeworth, Ema, and Athena all show incredible guilt when they think they did kill someone, and they were all in their late teens/adulthood at that time. Imagine how devastating that would be to a child, who wouldn't even have the maturity or resources to piece together their own innocence. Finally, consider that a child accused of murder would likely be taken away from their family and put in the care of someone to "fix" them and make them no longer dangerous. So not only would the child be emotionally devastated and branded for life as a murderer, but they would also be without comfort from their family or friends or anything they knew. |
| 266 | *** Exactly. In the United States – one of only two First-World countries to retain the death penalty (Japan is the other) – thanks to a series of Supreme Court rulings, it is illegal for the State to execute people who committed capital crimes when they were minors. Japan rarely executes more than about a half-dozen people per year anyway. So basically, Ema et al wouldn't be facing the gallows/needle/electric chair/gas chamber/firing squad, but Ema and Miles would certainly have been sent to mandatory psychological counselling, and possibly worse. Athena almost certainly faced a one-way ticket to juvie or the mental hospital forever or worse, being murdered by the person who murdered her mother. |
| 267 | *** It's unlikely that Edgeworth would've faced any legal consequences for an accidental murder that happened when he was a minor, but his career definitely would've been over, and there's no way he'd be able to live with the knowledge that he killed his own father, accident or not. Athena, on the other hand, would've been looking at juvie (that stunt with the robot repair chair almost painted her as an intentional murderer trying to obfuscate the evidence), or possibly the funny farm if the court decides she's insane (any regular judge or psychiatrist could potentially misunderstand her condition and misdiagnose her with schizophrenia) had Blackquill not taken the heat for her. Not sure what would've happened to Ema, but knowing Gant he probably would've arranged to have her taken away from Lana. |
| 268 | [[/folder]] |
| 269 | [[folder: Setting localisation-why does no one comment of very Japanese things in America?]] |
| 270 | * So the game features a court system based on the Japanese one, and in the Western versions of the game, where the game is set in the United States, Phoenix [[HandWave mentions some sort of sweeping judicial reform that resulted in the court system as shown in the games]]. Okay, I'll buy into that bit of suspension of disbelief. But then we get into [[http://www.awkwardzombie.com/index.php?page=0&comic=120913 characters and locations that are clearly of Japanese culture and mythology]] existing in the US that don't even get handwaved (e.g. historical Japanese settlements). I was fairly puzzled at the Kurain Village; someplace like Hazakura Temple sounds plausible in Los Angeles (where the Western versions take place) due to that area's cultural diversity; but an entire rural village dedicated to {{youkai}} (as shown in ''Dual Destinies'') is where things start to get really silly. |
| 271 | ** The explanation for the Japanese villages in ''Dual Destinies'' is that they were founded by Japanese immigrants. As for the youkai legends, it turns out that the legends were started simply to hide the fact that there was a huge amount of gold hidden in the one village. So it's not impossible that the villagers simply forgot when the legend sprang up, and just adopted the idea that the youkai were always there. |
| 272 | ** Somewhat ironically, LA is one of the only places in America where these games ''could'' conceivably take place. There really are mountains within 2 hours of the city (and closer too), the area has a ''huge'' Asian population (including, as mentioned elsewhere, the largest Japanese settlement on the American mainland – there really are Shinto temples in the city), and the legal system is known to be screwed up beyond belief (OJ Simpson trial anyone?). |
| 273 | *** Really the only cities that might be a better adapted setting than Los Angeles would be Portland or Seattle (their wetter climates and better public transportation more closely match Tokyo; LA is hot & semi-arid and infamously car-crazy), or maybe San Francisco (huge Asian population and famously earthquake prone). Vancouver BC would work as well, but then you'd have to pretend the legal system is Canadian… which I guess means you'd have to make the Judge's Brother a Texan or something? |
| 274 | ** When you factor in how all of the very clearly Japanese settlements are in the mountains, it's not impossible to believe, in the translations that do not take place in Japan, that Tenma Town exists ''because'' of Ami Fey and her followers. In T&T Maya tells us, and we are shown through the last case of T&T, that women who lack spiritual power and men are often neglected in Kurain and will leave due to lacking value. Thus it's wholly possible Tenma Town was founded by the people who left the Kurain Village and temples but chose to stay in the mountains that remind them of home. The only obviously Japanese locations that aren't stated to be located in the mountains are Whet Soba, which could well be a unique establishment, which is partially why Simon likes it so much, and Eldoon's Noodles noodle cart. But the fact that the locations this Headscratcher complains about are all in the mountains means they could be historically connected, even if they no longer are. |
| 275 | [[/folder]] |
| 276 | [[folder: Where was Raymond Shields?]] |
| 277 | * Similar to the 1-5/JFA retcon-- where the hell was Raymond Shields during the events of the first game? His attitude towards Edgeworth implies that he didn't follow 1-4 at all, even though you'd think he'd show interest in seeing his mentor's murderer finally brought to justice, especially considering said murderer was the prosecutor who had given them hell for a solid year. |
| 278 | ** What about Edgeworth's in-court reactions in 1-4 show he's not an AmoralAttorney? Presumably, Shields read the case file or saw the news report on the results. Nothing would imply Edgeworth wasn't a faithful minion of von Karma, and if he was... take a look at how Franziska reacted to her own father's death. |
| 279 | *** However, one would assume that Ray would want to watch the proceedings. After all, he is very relevant and would certainly be interested to see them as they were occurring. And the very fact that Edgeworth did indict von Karma should show that he isn't just a minion. |
| 280 | *** HOLD IT! Raymond Shields might have been shunned by Edgeworth during the latter's time as a ruthless prosecutor. That could explain why Shields merely watched from afar. That Edgeworth became reasonable was news to Shields, who, despite liking the change, still didn't like the idea of talking to, let alone running into, Von Karma's ward. After all, who's to say Edgeworth wasn't merely putting on a show of mercifulness to please the court's more reasonable authorities? Therefore, Shields making fun of Edgeworth when the two finally meet 18 years after DL-6 was a test to see if Edgeworth would make a Von Karma style reaction. Shields is delighted to find Edgeworth acting more like his father than like Von Karma, but hides all of that behind a façade of casual lawyer-prosecutor banter. |
| 281 | [[/folder]] |
| 282 | [[folder: Phoenix not using his Magatama as in court evidence?]] |
| 283 | * Why doesn't Phenox ever use his Magatama as evidence in court to get his clients declare innocent on the spot? In the ace Attorney universe, everyone knows that spirit channeling is real, and the Magatama was from Maya's home village, where spirit channeling is fairly common. It would be a major case of ArbitrarySkepticism for no one to believe him, especially since he could prove it on the spot. |
| 284 | ** The Psyche-Locks mechanic is all from Phoenix' perspective, no one but himself can actually see the locks. To anyone observing him, he would just appear to be ''really good'' at squeezing information out of the witness. The magatama and Psyche-Locks are essentially investigation-mode cross-examinations. |
| 285 | *** But he could give his Magatama to them so they could see the Psyche-Locks. It worked with Edgeworth. Why not give it to the judge? |
| 286 | *** Maybe the Judge wouldn't have the energy to see the locks. |
| 287 | *** You need energy to see them? |
| 288 | ** Passing around the Magatama like that might have an unforeseen risk. If it does work for that one trial, the judge or someone might have it confiscated for testing. Then Phoenix is left without one of his best tools, probably forever. |
| 289 | ** "Everyone knows that spirit channeling is real". No, they don't, the average person doesn't believe in it. This was discussed a good number of times in the first three games. Maya specifically tells Phoenix in 2-2 that most people think spirit channeling is all made up. Before the point of 3-5, at least, the Judge and basically everyone else for that matter would've been included under that. Remember that in case 2-2, the judge never actually definitely concludes one way or the other as to whether Franziska's claim that Maya could channel spirits was true or not. Specifically, he's just flat out confused, and isn't sure what to think. There's next to no way that Phoenix would've been believed if he tried claiming that he had a magic stone that some little girl zapped magical secret detecting powers into. He'd come across as completely insane. Even ''after'' the events of 3-5, in fact, since it's kind of a leap to go from what's exposed to the courtroom in that case to what the magatama is and can do. Even ''if'' Phoenix gave it to someone to get them to see what it could show them, and even ''if'' he's somehow believed in his claims, there's still the matter that the entire thing wouldn't be proof of anything in the first place. From Phoenix's personal perspective, it proves someone is hiding something, and he can pursue that. But from a legal perspective, it would mean jack squat. You can't find someone guilty or innocent, or condemn a witness, or whatever else, because some guy's magic shows that they'd lying/not lying. In real life court proceedings, you're not allowed to use a failed/passed lie detector test as proof, and that's something based around a specific, and understood scientific principle. Let alone some guy who claims that their magical locks only appear over someone when they're lying. |
| 290 | ** Also, don't forget that the Magatama CAN be fooled if one asks the wrong questions, as shown in 2-4. |
| 291 | ** The Magatama is far from flawless. Like the above said, it can easily be fooled because of the way it functions: it doesn't detect lies, but when person "has a secret hidden in their heart". What these secrets are can vary wildly, but they don't always coincide with each lie they tell. Someone can tell a bald faced lie or [[BelievingTheirOwnLies delude themselves into believing something]] and it would not activate at all. Even when it does go off, it doesn't force the target to spill their secrets. It lets Phoenix know if he's on the right track when he's already questioning someone, but the psyche locks won't break unless he has evidence with him the person cannot bring themselves to deny. Even then, the locks are representations of how willing much a person is willing to guard a secret. If the person isn't, under some circumstances, willing to reveal what they're hiding, the magatama can't force them to. As we've seen with Kristoph and his black psyche locks, some secrets are so deeply guarded that no amount of evidence would be enough to force the psyche locks to open. |
| 292 | [[/folder]] |
| 293 | [[folder: Why is the trial only a day after body discovery and investigation?]] |
| 294 | * Why would a legal system ever approve of a standard procedure where a murder trial takes place only one day after the body has been found and investigated? It doesn't match the Japanese legal system. It doesn't support the ideology of the Japanese legal system, where prosecutors typically pride themselves on having an airtight case ready and don't even go to trial if they don't think they have one, while in these games it becomes increasingly obvious that the standard prosecution procedure involves quickly looking for evidence, coming up with the first possible theory and trying to hide the existence of any evidence that makes it less certain. Too often the analysis of DNA evidence or even a proper autopsy can't be completed in time before the trial starts. And, of course, this helps culprits entirely too much, as all they have to do is fake enough evidence to suspect someone else and the system does the rest. The idea of shortening trials to only a few days at least has potential benefits, but why bother rushing the investigation? |
| 295 | ** That's literally the whole point of the streamlined system. The court system in Ace Attorney isn't designed to be fair or thorough, it's set up to get someone convicted for a crime as soon as possible no matter what so the police can move on. It wouldn't make sense for them to only streamline the court system without shortening the time allowed for investigations because the idea is that they have limited resources and they don't want to spend excess offensive time on cases. Having such a flawed and skewed system no only speeds up gameplay, but it also gives more urgency to Phoenix's trials. You're fighting against a system that IS designed to find a suspect and get them convicted as quickly as possible even if some of the facts don't tie in well. That's why Prosecutors like Edgeworth, who are trying to find the truth rather than win a case, are rare and often have to fight against their own system (like Edgeworth does in Investigations) just to get to the true bottom of the crimes they investigate. |
| 296 | [[/folder]] |
| 297 | [[folder: Where are the court appointed lawyers?]] |
| 298 | * Does/Did Japan and the Ace Attorney universe not have court appointed lawyers? Throughout the first game every case involves someone that nobody wants to defend because losing to tarnish their reputation. Fortunately Phoenix is always there and for various reasons willing to take these cases but what happens if Phoenix is busy with another case? Do they defend themselves? |
| 299 | ** There indeed are state appointed lawyers, they are even mentioned in at least 2 cases. For example in 1-2, Redd White wants to get Phoenix the worst state appointed lawyer possible, that's why he defends himself there. But to be fair it is a good question why Phoenix at the start doesn't take state appointed cases, this would have brought some money in. |
| 300 | ** IIRC, Phoenix ''does'' take cases outside of the ones we play, implied at around 1-5. Probably it's just that they're [[AlwaysMurder not murders.]] And for the first game, it could be presumed that Phoenix was still busy taking over Fey & Co. Office when he took 1-3 and 1-4 for Maya's and Edgeworth's sake. |
| 301 | [[/folder]] |
| 302 | [[folder: Why are they still friends with Larry?]] |
| 303 | * Why are Phoenix and Edgeworth even still friends with a guy they consider to be a pathetic, miserable, womanizing man child that ruins their lives on a constant basis(aka, Larry), when literally the only positive thing either of them can say about him is that he wouldn't commit murder. Moreover, why is it a running theme in the games themselves to have the two bring this up as though it solidifies their friendships. "He wouldn't kill people" is pretty flimsy as literally the only foundation for maintaining a toxic friendship, don't ya think? |
| 304 | ** They don't know either. This is more "we were friends in childhood and still kinda know each other" kind of friendship. There is no reason to assume that they keep in touch on regular basis, in fact most of their meetings are entirely coincidental, And both Phoenix and Miles doesn't seem particularly happy to see him. |
| 305 | ** Because he's loyal when the chips are down. One of the ways you can discern whether someone is a friend worth keeping is to see how they act when you're at your lowest point. Most people who are only friends with you out of convenience or unwholesome reasons will probably abandon you once your struggles make maintaining the friendship too much of a hassle for them. Larry is horribly obnoxious and infuriating to be around 95% of the time, but when he's REALLY needed, he's shown to step up and do his best to help, however bumbling and idiotic his way of doing that may be. When Edgeworth is in real danger of getting sent to prison in 1-4, Larry jumps in and tries to save him. He doesn't have to do that, nobody expects him to do it, and he risks pissing off the court and being held in contempt, but he does it anyway because Miles is his friend. And given that people are creatures of habit, it's very likely that Larry has done similar things in the past, and that Phoenix and Edgeworth are aware of this character trait. In that light, it doesn't really make sense to call off your friendship with a guy who has proven himself willing to stick his neck out for you when you're suffering. Not over some negligible, mildly annoying slights. |
| 306 | ** If Spirit of Justice is anything to go by, however, they don't consider him much of a friend anymore. You can practically hear Phoenix groan the second Larry shows up in Turnabout Time Traveler. |
| 307 | ** Because he saved Edgeworth's life in 1-4, and Edgeworth knows it, even if he's never actually thanked Larry or even acknowledged it. I guess letting him stick around is his reward, in a way. Plus, he's actually incredibly useful; he's so unpredictable that he unravels every case he's involved in because his antics simply cannot be planned for. |
| 308 | [[/folder]] |
| 309 | [[folder: Why does the defense cross-examine testimony beneficial to them?]] |
| 310 | * The First Turnabout stands out to me as one of the only times in the franchise where it is totally clear what everyone is trying to do and what the consequences are at any time: your client is your dumbass but totally non-violent friend that has been accused of murder, and the prosecution's case relies on a motive and a single witness's testimony. If that testimony is taken to be accurate by the court, logically, your client must be guilty. Therefore, you know the witness must be lying, but if you cannot cast sufficient doubt on it, you fail. The testimony is eventually proven to be a sham, and along the way, you have proven that the witness knew things only the killer could have, destroying the prosecution's case. Simple, straightforward, and completely consistent throughout.\ |
| 311 | \ |
| 312 | Yet, as the series has continued, with cases ballooning in size and complexity, tons of characters and reams of evidence, there are more and more instances of times in court where the simple question of "What am I doing, and why am I doing it?" does not have a good answer. Many times, as far as the player is aware, the current cross-examination's goal is to uncover someone's secret just for the sake of uncovering the secret. It's just that the final answer just so happens to relate to the case in some way - how convenient! The series sticks ''hard'' to the pattern of "prosecution starts by presenting a mountain of damning evidence and witness testimony, and then the defense systematically pokes holes in it until the trial is over", but this basic pattern only really works in small, simple cases like The First Turnabout but has a very difficult time fitting with anything more complex. The prosecution is trying to prove that the defendant is guilty, and the defense is trying to prove that they are not guilty. Evidence, which includes witness testimony, is used by both sides to reach those goals. Yet the idea of the defense calling a witness specifically to support their position is considered unorthodox and improper - why is one form of evidence only valid for one side to utilize and not the other?\ |
| 313 | \ |
| 314 | As a consequence of this, cross-examination is something reserved exclusively for the defense, even when the testimony being given is beneficial to their position - why the hell would I want to scrutinize and poke holes in my client's side of the story outside of the plot demanding that I do so? Sure, there have been instances of the defense requesting a particular witness to testify, but this is generally because the defense believes them to be hiding something despite the testimony ostensibly being hostile to their case. And throughout the entire series, there is not even one instance, not one, where the prosecution cross-examines a witness - not even in the prosecutor-focused Investigations sub-series.\ |
| 315 | \ |
| 316 | I suppose this is more of an observation about how the series has recognized that it is at risk of getting stale and is desperately trying to find new mechanics to add to the courtroom to keep things fresh (granted, not easy considering how few opportunities there logically are to add meaningful interactivity in a VisualNovel), but only succeeds in adding gimmicky novelties (Apollo's Perception, Athena's Mood Matrix, the Divination Seance, even the Pursuit mechanic in the Layton crossover and ''The Great Ace Attorney'', with only the Jury in ''[=GAA=]'' really adding anything substantial[[note]]and even then, you're told that you are meant to be pitting the jurors' preconceived notions against each other when you're really just doing a cross-examination in a different way, as most of the jurors just end up functioning as witnesses (i.e. they introduce new information) - the first game even admits near the end that you're not really pitting these people against each other most of the time[[/note]]) when it could be doing so much more by stepping back and realizing that maybe the playbook laid down in 2001 on the GBA could use a little revising. What about if the defense calls a witness that testifies in favor of the defendant, and you have to pick which questions to ask them that are relevant to the case? Then the prosecution cross-examines them, and you can refute the contradictions that they find. You could even have your witnesses stay on the stand while cross-examining the prosecution's witnesses, and you could point out contradictions not only between their testimony and the evidence, but also your own witness' testimonies.\ |
| 317 | \ |
| 318 | I know that the real answer is "because the Japanese court system is stupid and terrible and the games lampoon how broken it is", but after nearly a dozen games spread over the better part of two decades, I can't be the only who thinks that the series should be capable of addressing issues like this by now. |
| 319 | ** The idea of cross-examinations in general is to find the inconsistencies in testimony and show it to the court. The lawyers in the series are trying to find the truth, not just get their clients off on the charges. They believe that their clients are innocent, and thus they figure that any testimony that damns them has some sort of contradiction in it that needs to be exposed. When they're cross-examining beneficial, helpful testimony, it's generally for the same reason. To try and find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If they spot a lie in a testimony, then they don't care if it's bad for their client, they're going to go after it with everything they have because only then will they learn the whole truth. |
| 320 | *** I understand that our Good Boy™ defense attorneys are going to honestly scrutinize every bit of testimony put in front of them, no matter what. What I don't understand is why certain testimonies are even being put in front of them to scrutinize - the {{Amoral Attorney}}s in this setting are not restricted to prosecutors. It is a conflict of interest, evidence of a very broken system. It takes me out of it when I realize that the only way justice is ever dispensed in this universe is if defense attorneys have a nigh ''suicidal'' commitment to finding the truth above defending their clients (which, in some schools of thought, is itself actually ''immoral'', meaning that the series practically runs on MoralLuck). The idea that "it's fine that defense attorneys cross-examine everything, even their own clients, because they're going to find the inconsistencies" sounds an awful lot like "the ends justify the means" to me. I just think it would not only address [[FridgeLogic systematic issues with the setting]], but also ensure there's a lot less confusion in the minute-to-minute experience as to "what do I hope to accomplish by doing what I am currently doing" while also opening up potential for interesting mechanics that the series would greatly benefit from. I wouldn't necessarily expect this from a series just starting out - but Ace Attorney has been around long enough that it really should've realized that this is a problem on multiple fronts by now. |
| 321 | ** The games work best when you realize that they're treated less like a court case and more like a mystery. Each case presents an unusual crime and tasks you with solving it. Sure, you could easily find enough to prove that the client is innocent, but that would leave the situation unresolved and feeling less than satisfying as a narrative. Yeah, it doesn't make sense that I can show that it was physically impossible for little sally to have killed the pro wrestler with that sledgehammer and still have her go to jail for it without proving who did, but that's an unfortunate conceit of the premise. |
| 322 | [[/folder]] |
| 323 | [[folder: Why does everyone not know about major incidents?]] |
| 324 | * Why is it that none of the protagonists and their assistants ever seen to know anything about major past incidents that you'd imagine everyone in all of the ''country'' should've heard about, let alone citizens of the city where they actually happened. The SL-9 incident - A major serial killing that happened 2 years ago. Phoenix doesn't know about. Movie star dies (yes, the fact that it was an accident caused by Hammer was covered up, but I doubt they literally covered up the fact that the guy died) - Phoenix doesn't know about it. Murder of an important researcher at a local federal space center - Phoenix doesn't know about it. Orca supposedly kills someone during a public performance - Phoenix doesn't know about it--Yeah, you get the idea. |
| 325 | ** Particularly egregious is the fact that Phoenix has never even heard of DL-6, despite the fact that the father of one of his best friends was the victim. |
| 326 | *** Well to be fair on this point at least, he was only 9 at the time DL-6 occurred. If I recall, mentions something along the lines of how Edgeworth transferred schools after the incident, but neither him nor Larry knew why. I can buy that he at least didn't know what was going on at the time. But it's true that once Phoenix started actively looking into Edgeworth's past that he should've at some point stumbled upon the fact that a lawyer with the same last name was murdered around around the same time that Edgeworth had transferred schools, and put two and two together. Just a search for "Edgeworth" should've turned up a crap ton about the DL-6 incident, given how big of a deal the case was at the time. |
| 327 | [[/folder]] |
| 328 | [[folder: Why does everyone treat costumes, especially full body or concealing ones, as decisive evidence?]] |
| 329 | To name a few The Steel Samurai costume in 1-3, Maya's outfit in 2-2, Max's symbols in 2-3, the Nickel Samurai Costume in 2-4 and the list likely goes on. Why does nobody beside Phoenix decide to point out that, if the face or other truly recognizable features are on the costume, it likely can't be the defendant just because they're famous for the costume? Especially since it'd be an incredibly bad decision to commit any sort of crime whilst wearing a costume you're famous for. |
| 330 | ** In two of those cases, it's Oldbag or Lotta saying it, and they both jump to conclusions about everything and it's pointed out as ridiculous in universe. 2-2 isn't a valid example because Maya is supposedly the only other person in the room with the victim, and she was supposedly channeling someone at the time, so even if it was actually Maya, it would make sense because the spirit wouldn't exactly worry about hiding the identity of the medium and changing out of her clothes. And for 2-3, I assume there's only one version of that outfit, and they wouldn't expect Max to not have them at the time. |
| 331 | [[/folder]] |
| 332 | [[folder: Did NOBODY question the broken window for 15 years?]] |
| 333 | * In the photo showing Gregory Edgeworth's dead body you can very clearly see a bullet hole in the elevator window. It is also clearly stated the murder weapon was fired TWICE. So did nobody investigate why there were two shots and why the window was broken? Or are the police in this series so incompetent that nobody noticed the bullet hole until Phoenix pointed it out? |
| 334 | ** This is a series that thrives on investigators being lazy and incompetent so that the player can have an obvious solution to the problem. It's more excusable than normal here as it involved Manfred von Karma, an influential prosecutor who would know who to lean on to ensure that a few details don't get in the way of the narrative he wanted to be believed. |
| 335 | [[/folder]] |
| 336 | [[folder: Possession = Body Morphing?]] |
| 337 | * So I had just assumed that when Maya was channeling Mia in the first game that she either pushed her breasts up and redid her hair subconsciously, or it was simply for the sake of the audience (similar to whenever one of the Imajins posses Ryotaro in ''Series/KamenRiderDenO'' - he doesn't just sprout a literal hat or glasses from nowhere). But then the second game throws that out the window by not only having a Pearl-possessed-Mia comment on the smaller clothing, but for this to even be a plot point in the same case! I get the Doylist reason behind this, but in-universe it makes no sense! How does a person's soul have the power to overwrite conservation of mass at that scale?! The Kurain school presumably isn't the only one teaching spirit channelling, so why isn't this more well known?! And since only females are able to do this, what would happen if they tried channelling a male ghost?! Would they suddenly just grow a penis?! (Wait, this is starting to sound like a hentai doujin, so maybe I don't want that last one answered...) |
| 338 | [[/folder]] |
| 339 | [[folder: Where's the green?]] |
| 340 | So far every main/significant character has had a "signature colour" so to speak that makes up most of their outfit- Phoenix, Trucy, and Dhurke have blue, Maya, Pearl, and the Gavin brothers are all purple (as is Ga'ran), Edgeworth and Apollo are red, Athena is yellow, Franziska and Blackquill have black (though you can maybe say Franziska's is blue?), Nahyuta and "Bobby" are white, Rayfa and Amara have pink (Amara's dress seems to be a pale pink-white?)... but nobody has green? Green is more used to accent characters with a brown colour scheme- Gumshoe, Godot, and Inga. Winston Payne is the only person who wears predominantly green. Why? |
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/context.php
FollowingContext Headscratchers / AceAttorney
Go To
- Show Spoilers
- Night Vision
- Sticky Header
- Wide Load
