Okay. I'm a lawyer. First case. I have a boss. How tutorial-esque.
"I hope this stance in life [...]" is a particularly awkward line. "I hope people don't end up taking advantage of you over your personality" or some better variation could be preferable? I'm not sure.
The defendant lobby music seems to cut out for a second/half a second every 30 seconds or so.
"This is a real trial this time, so I won't be saying anything" seems like the exact opposite of what makes sense to me
If there were ever a time to artificially remain silent and detached, it would be in training; not when there's actual lives on the line.
"that lack of blood splatters
on your clothes"
I have to admit the assets are good. The new evidence popping up on screen and everything.
"She" is capitalised at the end of Monica's Story.
Nice. His brother is a prosecutor.
Murder was TWO
days ago? The Court System is getting really slow these days.
Seems like the best way to win this is to fail these questions at the start. The client will have much better chances if I let the mentor take over!
NOOOOO! I can't fail! (But there's an extra line for getting things wrong twice or more times; excellent.)
Ah, I'm creatively unable to fail the second question, too. I see what you're doing here, mister designer: not allowing the player to lose the case this early so you don't have to write the mentor taking over.
So! Cross-Examination. First this is that it's apparently not using a cross-examination block wait what excuse me?
So, CE1. My first thought is to present the knife at "I saw Monica exit the bathroom, holding a knife.". Monica attempting to use the knife against the defendant should have assured her fingerprints remained, not having been cleaned off. At the very least, this should be presentable, or addressed at some point before now.*
Very believable that an unarmed person would knock out an armed one. Are self-defence lessons enough to erase all doubt?
Interesting mechanic. Ultimately a way to focus on subtle memory contradictions. I like it. I'll steal it
I like his disgruntled reaction. It looks fairly polite because he moves relatively little.
Eugene say he asked the witness not to mention she was attacked. However, she mentioned it in CE1. What I believe you meant was "not to mention she got wounded in the attack".
The Judge also accepts this blatant concealment of facts with no justification?
The Witness just avoided answering the question she was asked all together. I believe this fallacy is called 'Red Herring'.
It seems the argument here is that 'Well, no matter how, she did
get inside.' 'Yeah, but it couldn't have been through normal means, which means something is being omitted here!' 'lol doesn't matter. You have no evidence of that.' 'That she got inside at all is itself evidence of something omitted!' 'Not good enough.'
Alright, knife contradiction, though it was more about the blood than the fingerprints. Nevertheless, the contradiction is the very same one. I argue that you ought to make it possible to skip CE2 by presenting the knife at CE1.*
'Blood-soaked hands' is interesting for a variety of reasons, but most of all because it kind of undos the previous CE? We just pointed out a contradiction about how there isn't blood on the knife but there should have been and she replies by saying she cleaned it and then had the defendant's blood soaked hands touch it? That'd get it bloody again! Which isn't even the case. It doesn't even had complete fingerprints.*
Anyway, she shouldn't even be blood-soaked so I'll present that.
Evidence that proves she's lying once we know that there's no evidence the defendant killed the victim? No idea. This bit of logic is a bit strange because... We just proved she lied by pointing out the blood. There really should be nothing more to prove at this point.
Presenting the Assault on Montana evidence ultimately doesn't make much sense since we already knew she lied previously. We can't prove whether she lied or not about the Assault, though we could prove she lied about the bloodied hands.
Awww, sweet Isaac.
*How to fix this: The objective of the partial fingerprints are to show that the weapon was cleaned. However, they do not fit, because the witness manipulated the evidence in such a way that she could easily have made the defendant leave some fingerprints on it.
What would make more sense would be for there to be the defendant's complete fingerprints on it. The fact that there's no blood means it was cleaned, but then she had to use it again, so fingerprints. (In reality the witness had the defendant grab it, so that's why it'd have complete fingerprints.)
In the same vein, it really doesn't make much sense for the victim to think the hands were bloodied, since she must have seen then in the tampering process.