Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Part #4 - Episode 1, Trial: Should Have Taken the Fifth

Part 4: Episode 1, Trial: Should Have Taken the Fifth

Part 4: Episode 1, Trial: Should Have Taken the Fifth

Well, then...

As Mr. Wright just told us, the victim was struck with a blunt object.

Would you explain to the court just what the "object" was?

Where does this game take place? It's not exactly following normal criminal procedure for the US, so maybe Japan? In the US we would have opening statements, and then the prosecutor would introduce evidence via questioning the crime scene techs / police officers that found it. I guess we're streamlining a bit for the game format, anyway.

It was found lying on the floor, next to the victim.

I see... The court accepts it into evidence.

No need to show the entry in the Court Record, it's exactly the same as here.

Be sure to pay attention to any evidence added during the trial.

That evidence is the only ammunition you have in court.

Use "Tab" to check the Court Record frequently.

Mia is already regretting hiring us.

Never not going to show it.

Cool, I wonder who we're going to see.

Huh? You, like, can't do that. At least in the US, the defendant has the right to not testify / self-incriminate. There's a whole constitutional amendment about it. I guess Japan is different? Look up "take the fifth" if you want to learn more about it.

Pay attention. You don't want to miss any information that might help your client's case.

You'll get your chance to respond to the prosecution later, so be ready!

Let's just hope he doesn't say anything... unfortunate.

Yeah, let's hope...

Yup we're screwed. "Pay attention" was not the advice I was hoping for. More like, "How do we object to this entire proceeding and make him shut up?"

Ugh, I can't watch.

We were great together! We were Romeo and Juliet, Cleopatra and Mark Anthony!

This guy...

Excellent reaction Phoenix, you're doing great, keep it up.

WHAT'S IT TO YOU, ANYWAY!?

Just motive for murder, that's all...

In fact, she had completely abandoned you... and was seeing other men!

She had just returned from overseas with one of them the day before the murder!

Maybe we can make use of that fact - other men means other people involved that could have their own motives.

Whaddya mean, "one of them"!?

If we could just get our client to shut up.

Lies! All of it, lies! I don't believe a word of it!

According to this, she was in Paris until the day before she died.

More evidence is cool and all, but this passport just proves she was traveling, not what she was doing there. Wasn't she a model? Wouldn't a lot of travel be expected for that job?

Dude... no way...

It appears that she had several "Sugar Daddies."

Daddies? Sugar?

Yes. Older men, who gave her money and gifts.

She took their money and used it to support her lifestyle.

Objection, counsel is testifying, and assuming facts not in evidence. Seriously where is my "Objection" button?

We can clearly see what kind of woman this Ms. Stone was.

I thought it was usually the defense attorney's job to smear the victim?

I don't think you want him to answer that question.

Finally, maybe we can stop this mess!

I really enjoy this animation, too. I was expecting a yell and a point though!

My client had no idea the victim was seeing other men!

There's my point! Go get 'em.

Phoenix uses "Point"! It's super-effective!

Effective against the prosecutor anyway. Our idiot client still won't shut up.

That cheatin' she-dog!

I'm gonna die. I'm just gonna drop dead!

I'm going to get to the bottom of this!

Okay, that went poorly. What would have happened if we'd just let him respond to the question?

No fun point on this path.

Well, Mr. Butz?

The rest plays out the same from here. So apparently that choice didn't matter much. I assume we'll have more meaningful choices later?

Maybe? I was pretty convinced he didn't actually know he'd been dumped.

That is not an appropriately neutral comment from a judge, sheesh.

Relax, motive is just one part of the means-motive-opportunity triangle. They still have to prove he could have done it. And they already proved he's too stupid to have done it.

You went to the victim's apartment on the day of the murder, did you not?

Oh shit I sure hope not. Wait is that who we saw back in the prologue?

Gulp!

Well, did you, or did you not?

(Uh oh. He went.)

Hmm. I think we're fresh out of law school and probably still believe in not supporting perjury and all that, so let's have him tell the truth. They probably know the truth anyway.

(I know! I'll send him a signal...)

I... have no words. That was amazing! Though it doesn't seem like it would be terribly effective...

The jury of talking heads buzzes with that revelation, complete with a conversation sound effect. All I can think about while looking at that image is the head-in-a-jar museum in Futurama.

Order!

Well, Mr Butz?

She wasn't home, man... So, like, I didn't see her.

Hey, there's the "Objection!" I was expecting. It comes complete with a voiced line, too! Weird time for us to butt in though. That voice is more whiny than I would have thought for us, too.

Oh, never mind, it was this guy. Boo. Pretty sure you can't just stand up and declare that the witness is lying, either. That has to be done after providing the evidence/testimony that contradicts what he just said here.

This judge has made it 100 years practicing law without ever hearing of someone lying.

Rule #1 for lawyers is don't ask a question you don't want answered. The only exception to that rule is when the answer doesn't matter; like here, when you have a witness that can make the answer to the question irrelevant and make the defendant look bad either way. Since we told Mr. Butz to tell the truth and he ended up getting called a liar anyway, what happens if we tell him to lie?