There are subjectives, and then there are these. While you may believe a work fits here, and you might be right, people tend to have rather vocal, differing opinions about this subject. Please keep these off of the work's page.
In case 1-4 of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, when Maya is actually arrested for contempt charges, coupled with the threat of you being arrested for same simply for cross-examining a decisive witness (made worse when it's revealed that she never witnessed the crime herself). The game tries to handwave legal oddities with Rule of Fun and a backstory that suggests a simplified court process heavily stacked against the player, but this may as well be a kangaroo court. It doesn't even matter that Manfred von Karma is the villain - a prosecutor does not declare law and punishment. No court works that way this side of a totalitarian dictatorship.
The fourth case of Apollo Justice ends with what many consider to be a major Anticlimax. The murderer breaks down alright, but not because of the evidence you present (which gets shot down); it's because of Phoenix's overhauling of the judicial system. On top of that, Apollo is completely absent between the two trial days, during the MASON System segment—are we playing Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney, or Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney: Apollo Justice?
What's epically stupid about this development is that, if you lose the case the traditional way (too many penalties) the judge ends the trial immediately instead of handing it over to the jury like he was supposed to.
All of this can be chalked up to Executive Meddling, since the original script didn't have Phoenix or this case in it. But Capcom wanted the star of the series in it so...
In the first case of game two, it's claimed that the (misspelled) name of your client in the sand was written by the victim, naming his killer as he died. Despite the fact that he died instantly of a broken neck. This wouldn't be a problem were it not for the fact that the game doesn't allow you to point this out or even try to provide a reason why they're willing to run with him being capable of writing - instead you have to highlight the spelling error made with the writing of the name. This is already after they've arrested his girlfriend for the crime, when she has no motive, based on evidence consisting of her name being written and misspelled with the wrong hand by a guy who couldn't have stayed alive long enough to do it. The witness's testimony was full of ridiculously obvious contradictions, made even more questionable by his poor eyesight, and he had even left his cell phone behind at the crime scene, complete with a list of numbers of known criminals. If Phoenix hadn't been struck with plot-convenient amnesia, this might have been the easiest case in the series. The cherry on top? The incident is such a tarnish on Maggey's reputation that she is forced to retire from the police force, despite her innocence! What?
There has to be at least two times per case where Phoenix or Apollo has much better evidence that could end the trial much quicker, but we are not allowed to use it.
In 3-2, no one bothered to even mention how Luke Atmey's nose would have posed a serious problem wearing the Mask*DeMasque... uh, mask. They don't even lampshade it, they just ignore it entirely!
The third case of Apollo Justice: two shots were fired from a high-calibre gun which could potentially dislocate the shoulder of a strong adult if they didn't brace themselves properly while firing it. Your client is a small, 14-year-old boy who has probably never fired a gun in his life, and is completely unharmed. And legally blind. This fact is brought up in the trial, but no-one thinks it would have done more than throw his aim off a bit. It's also later revealed that the accused is only pretending to be blind, but the cops wouldn't have known that at the time of the arrest. Not only that, but it is eventually revealed the gun belonged to the victim, who was an Interpol agent three times the defendant's size and more than capable of fending him off in an assault. And why didn't anyone try to ascertain the time that passed between the shooting and the death? That would have proven Machi not guilty right away!
Per your last point, it's impossible to determine exactly when a gun has been fired with any accuracy (no pun intended).
As a bonus, the prosecution also figures that after the police started their investigation, the legally blind suspect stole a musician's guitar, went back for the victim's corpse (who is three times his size, remember) and lifted and carried them onto a portion of the stage that was elevated fifteen feet, requiring considerably more strength than he most likely possessed, leaving himself unconscious, and accomplishing little more than further implicating himself. Why would he do that? Because it fit the lyrics of the song he was performing.
Further compounding the insanity is the fact that the prosecution never seems to take the height difference into account. For their suspect to have killed the victim, he would have had to be standing on his tiptoes holding the gun over his head with his arms fully extended in order to get the bullets to go on a perfectly straight trajectory through the victim's shoulder. Because of this, the case became incredibly simplistic once the player realized that the killer would have to have been a man in order to beat the victim in a fight, two new male characters were introduced in the case, and one of them was Trucy's uncle - which by default made him innocent...
Currently playing through case 2-4 of the series, and it's been rather absurd. Especially since there are multiple times when you have to present the correct evidence in one try or you lose. The part where you have to point out The Nickel Samurai's costume is baggy around the legs in a photo with one try seems especially insane, since you could assume it's because of the angle and the photo being in black and white.
A much better contradiction that they should have also allowed was the Nickle Samuri's arm completely fills the glove in his promotional poster but you can clearly see space between the arm and the glove in the picture. Thus whoever was wearing the costume at that time of the picture must have had thinner arms than your client. But the game railroads you into a game over if you try and point this out.
One of the biggest Wall Bangers about the Ace Attorney series is that even after proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the true killer was there with the victim and pulled the trigger / stabbed with the sword / whatever...you still lose the argument, and the case, if you cannot decisively prove that the killer had a motive. Even though everyone knows and can see that the killer has, without a doubt, killed the victim, motive or not. On top of that, you must always prove the real killer's motive while your clients are routinely arrested without motives and the prosecutors always handwave this.
That and the fact that you need to prove who the killer was to get your client off the hook, even if you can conclusively prove your client not guilty. Phoenix is a defense attorney - it shouldn't be his job to find out who actually committed the murder! What makes the whole business worse it that Edgeworth himself said that it is his job to find the guilty party during the Redd White Case and that Nick should stop accusing the witness. Admittedly, doing it any other way would result in a very unsatisfying narrative where you never get to corner the real killer, so this is probably a Justified Trope. Brutally parodied in this comic◊
The insane part is that, in one case, stating that the suspect had no reason to kill someone who they most likely never met and therefore isn't likely to be the culprit, just earns you a brushing aside from the judge, who says people kill each other every day without motivation. This means the court accepts that a motive aren't necessary to commit the crime, but you are required to provide one anyway when you point out someone else who could have done it.
It is also the start of the events in Apollo Justice where Phoenix starts working behind the scenes to overhaul the current judicial system to one with a jury so that evidence does not have to be THE sole way to convict the guilty party. After a few years of Phoenix Wright having to come up with evidence and use the most insane logic for them and the motive of the killer, it is no wonder that he finally decided to do something about the system geared towards getting people guilty by Apollo's time.
One of the cross-examinations in Case 3 of Ace Attorney Investigations is a constantly cited Wall Banger by many players: You are told by the other characters that in this testimony, you have to prove that the victim and the murderer's girlfriend never knew they were related. Sounds simple, but then, you end up spending over 30 minutes on this one testimony. Then you find out that answer is not to prove that they didn't know they were related but that there were three people involved in the kidnapping case.
In addition, near the end of the case, Lance admits that he was in on the whole kidnapping plot. However, even at that point, he insists that Lauren killed Oliver. When you finally provide the final evidence that reveals that he did it... he breaks down and admits that Oliver attacked him and he killed him in self-defense. Uh... why didn't he say that earlier? He's already admitted to every part of the crime except the part that's completely justified, and yet he still tries to frame someone else for it? What's the point? While he could have been lying about that as well, the game never follows up on it.
What about the fact you first establish a completely plausible crime scene by a thorough explanation of the unusual shape of the wound on the victim, but when the real crime scene is revealed to be elsewhere, no-one bothers to even try to explain the now-unlikely wound again?
The biggest wallbanger of Investigations was when you had to examine the video tape. Just to start with you need to prove that a certain card we see someone holding so as to only show us the back of it contains orders given to him by the boss of the smuggling ring. What part of the picture do you have to show to prove this? Just point out the card the victim is holding. Did they really need the player to do this, in retrospect its so painfully obvious that it seems like it was designed JUST to trip the player up by making them think too hard. Then after that you need to prove that the person sitting in the limo was connected to the nation of Cohdopia. There's a great big shiny metal that has the colors of Cohdopia visible and we later learn there was given to only one Cohdopia hero as a war metal, but guess what its not the right answer! its the black card in the figure's breast pocket. It's like the game is trying to screw you over at this point!
Worse, the limo itself has a Cohdopian flag on it, but the camera zooms in on the window to keep you from pointing this out.
In one section of case 1-5, the testimony reads 'The man raised up his knife, and... and stabbed Mr. Marshall in the chest...!'. You possess an autopsy report stating that he was 'Stabbed in the back'. Presenting it here will get you a penalty. My face.◊
Along similar lines, earlier in that case a witness talks about how she saw the defendant stabbing the victim with a 10 MM knife, the autopsy report says that they will killed by a stab wound from a 12 MM knife. Trying to point out this CLEAR contradiction will do nothing but put you on the fast train to Game Over land.
In case 3 of Trials and Tribulations, you have to deal with a claim that a previous witness saw what was going on through a large mirror. The witness talked about how he was trying to read the victim's newspaper prior to the crime. You have the newspaper in your court record. Yet, nobody at the trial seems to bother to ask themselves, how the hell could a witness have possibly even tried to read a reflected version of a newspaper...
This may be pushing it, but it is possible to read a text reflected in a mirror. However, this requires extreme focus and is very stressing on the brain. Even if the reflection problem was pointed out, there was no way to prove that the witness did not try to read by the reflection, as needlessly taxing as it is.
Case 3 in general pretty much demands that you forget the fact that the case is a month old. The Judge throws a fit at Godot for not mentioning the bloodstain (ketchup) on the defendant's apron, but since he was presiding over this trial a month ago, he should have already known about it. The fact that the crime scene was left preserved, complete with yellow tape, as well as the victim's lotto ticket cluttered desk, for an entire month only makes it stranger.
The second day of case 5 of Trials and Tribulations is an utter nightmare in terms of the logistics of guilt. As the trial day begins, Iris declares that she was involved in the murder's coverup, but claims that the actual murderer was Maya. For several cross-examinations, you must prove her accusations false. If you fail, the court firmly gives a guilty verdict to... Iris, rather than Maya. Later on, it's revealed that the defendant in the courtroom is Dahlia instead of Iris, and she claims to have killed Maya. Fail to disprove this, and a guilty verdict is given to... Iris. But handle everything right, dispel all of these accusations, and prove that Iris was never at the actual murder scene (as stated by multiple witnesses, including Dahlia), and the case turns to the question of who actually had the opportunity to strike the victim dead. Fail to accuse the correct person, and the court gives the guilty verdict to... Iris. Apparently the court is just that obsessed with arresting the original suspect.
The biggest wall banger of them all comes from a single quote: "Even accidental murder is murder, you know." Has the judicial system decayed that much? Would they have given Edgeworth a life sentence for accidentally killing his father when he was nine years old?
In real life this is called Involuntary Manslaughter and caries a lesser, but no less serious, sentence.
In the first case of Ace Attorney Investigations 2, a hired assassin calls his mark cowardly because he is unwilling to sacrifice his life to save his bodyguard. Think about that for a second.