|
Someone Awful! posted:That's what I thought, I've just literally never heard it referred to as a "light stand" before. For some reason it never struck me as weird until this LP... It's a term more common to acting and photography; not sure why localization felt the need to use jargon there.
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
rotinaj posted:One thing that has always driven me crazy about these games is that the law system is obviously not the American one. In America, the defense had the right to know about all evidence, speak to all witnesses, have copies of all legal reports like autopsies. Japan, like almost every country in the world that is neither the US nor a member of the British Commonwealth, has a civil law system rather than English common law. Essentially, not only is there no concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', often there is no truly adversarial court proceeding and convictions of arrestees tends be 90%+. The onus is on the defense to prove their client innocent. As stated previously in this thread, the Phoenix Wright franchise is a parody of the Japanese court system.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Tax Refund posted:Considering what we've already seen in terms of evidence suddenly becoming relevant when nobody thought it would be until the witness said a certain thing, that has all sorts of potential for humorous-in-retrospect situations. "Your Honor, I want to place the victim's passport into evidence. I have no idea why, but maybe someone will mention something during the trial that will make her recent travels relevant? What? No, it's my partner's sister who has E.S.P., not me. I'm just getting a hint from my Protagonist Powers that this passport is going to be needed tomorrow, that's all." Actually, I think it's a nod to the fact that there tends to be facts in cases which don't seem to be important but can be crucial to proving a client's innocence, but also facts which do seem to be important but turn out to be irrelevant.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Incidentally, question for any lawyerly types here in the thread. My experience of watching amazingly bad procedurals has taught me that the prosecution is required by law to share any and all information the prosecutor is aware of with the defense here in the US, but that the defense is not required by law to share anything at all. Per the Model Rules (rule 3.3), lawyers are required to present all legal authority to the tribunal, even if directly adverse to their client.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Glazius posted:So... Edgeworth knows his own case is full of poo poo and is hoping not to get called on it? Or is he only doing as much prep as Phoenix? I imagine it's more that he's so used to winning every case he's forgotten how to put effort into it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
Glazius posted:Given Grossberg's history, I wonder why Mia thought he'd be willing to defend Maya. Did she not know about the connection? Mia clearly didn't consider any circumstance in which Grossberg'd be unable to come to Maya's assistance.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
The list of names is just that, but Mr White built up his image and company on being able to blackmail people. To him, the list of names being disclosed is proof that he's a failure. He has cognitive dissonance out the rear end, is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
whitehelm posted:The camera wasn't turned on until 1:00. They didn't care about that before because they thought everyone else was at the Employee Area until then and the front gate was locked. Nah. I suspect nobody bothered to look earlier than that because obviously there were plenty of people there that morning. Generally you want a small suspect pool that gets smaller as evidence comes in. Neither Nick nor Edgeworth thought about the director and other crew because they don't really know much about how TV is produced, also, so naturally all assumed that the period from 1pm to the time of the murder was relevant.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Air is lava! posted:Has any murderer on trail ever managed to defend themselves by claiming they didn't have a motive? Motive is actually really unimportant. For all we know she might have lost her temper and started fighting him when he insulted her wardrobe after she had a sleepless night. Legally nobody really cares why it happened. Motive does matter in some cases, actually,, but it depends on the circumstances. e;f,b with a much more thorough counterargument.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:The game literally tells you that the only credible statement extracted from the travesty that is her testimony was the fact she heard two gunshots around midnight. Everything else is to be discarded. Except that we only have proof of one gunshot and only her testimony that there'd been more than one. So either her camera shot its wad (plausible) after the first gunshot, or she's trying to ingratiate herself to the police to be a star witness (also plausible).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:4. The witness heard someone the prosecution asserts to have been the defendant walk by, muttering about a death. ftfy
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
lol if you think becoming a lawyer necessitates doing anything other than passing the bar exam. (Generally you do want to get an education, first, since passing the bar exam without one can be problematic.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
Dr. Buttass posted:Honestly, for real: Who the gently caress shaves with a switchblade? Someone who wants to look like a badass. There are/were people who shave with axes, too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
My art class was tasked with drawing an anime character, cliché, etc. (so, non-original artwork) over the weekend, so I drew Phoenix Wright: (Apologies for errors, 'talent' is what I aim to get out, not what I came in with.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Hobgoblin2099 posted:That's pretty good, to be honest. If I have any criticism, I'd say the face is a little too long. Yeah. Kinda noticed too late to do anything about it without a lot of erasure, unfortunately.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Mraagvpeine posted:Why do trials even have an audience in the first place? What AlphaKretin said, but it also enables people to learn how trials actually work. (Hint: it's generally not like it's shown on television, and that includes Judge Judy, who is an arbitrator dealing directly with schmucks.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Even in the US you can't skip trial proceedings just because the perpetrator confessed to the crime, since among other things the sentencing remains to be seen...and there may have been mitigating factors that affect the charges filed and whether the crime was justified or not, and so on.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
AlphaKretin posted:I did a lovely crop job if anyone wanted an avatar. [modedit: OP was very clear about no friggin' spoilers, even behind tags! (Repost this later. Much later.) -fedule] Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Oct 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:I weep for the Japaniforian police force that the best they can get is Gumshoe, a guy who thinks he's a wild west sheriff and Meekins. ...And here we have an example of why the Oxford comma is important.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:I'm having trouble reading this sentence as referring to anything other than 3 distinct persons. Could you illustrate your line of thought? Sir, I believe you might have a problem with your brain being missing.  More seriously: 'and' is a conjunction. It joins two things. When you have a three-item list (x, y, and z), the Oxford comma allows it to join the last item to the list; otherwise, you're saying that y and z are x. This is important, too, when you have a list consisting of pairs (v and w, x and y, and t and z), because otherwise x, y, t, and z can be interpreted as a single item of four components, rather than the intended two items of two components each. Aerdan fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Nov 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:What do you call someone who's a weeaboo for Texas? A teeaboo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
SgtSteel91 posted:I forgot what evidence there was, is it the barrel in the parking lot or the Blue Badger sign? My guess is the barrel, since it's been just sitting there without commentary throughout the majority of the case. The Blue Badger's come up, though, since it obscured events in the evidence room.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:If the state is willing to run roughshod over the rule of law they would certainly not be above simply strongarming the jury members to get a guilty verdict. This happened quite frequently in England before sometime in the early 19th century. Sentencing is usually up to the judge, though since the late 80s the US has had mandatory minimum requirements on sentencing for various crimes, where the requirements were set by Congress, which kind of ties judges' hands. Add to that the fact that a lot of prosecutors push for the maximums possible from the beginning with the intention of causing the defendant to cop a plea to lesser charges even if they're innocent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 08:32
|
|