Claire Corlett

Fish Food, Fish Tanks, and More
Real Lawyer Goes To Court in Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney • Professionals Play

Real Lawyer Goes To Court in Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney • Professionals Play


Phoenix are you absolutely sure I’m sorry I can’t with her outfit my name is Diana iseman I’m a criminal defense attorney and trial attorney I’m a former prosecutor for the city of Los Angeles the primary function of my job is justice is to make sure that justice is done in the court system I sometimes represent victims and most of the time represent defendants that are accused of crimes I work primarily in the state criminal courts and usually it’s just the prosecutor and the defense attorney negotiating dispositions and exchanging discovery on behalf of the client it is impossible for me to watch any show based on the criminal justice system it is usually completely inaccurate because there are rules that we all have to abide by and if they displayed an accurate representation of what those rules are it would be really boring programming when I was in law school actually we had a game that helped us prepare for trial advocacy situations I think it was called objection and that actually helped prepare me for the bar exam so I guess in that sense I do have some video cables pertaining to this kind of thing but just looking at the graphics here I’m gonna guess it’s probably not super accurate let’s do this August 3rd 9:47 a.m. district court defendant lobby number 2 boy am i nervous oh my god Oh hiya chief I think she’d be admonished and thrown out of court for wearing that whoo I’m glad I made it on time dominatrix gig takes a lot of time out of her day it’s over my life everything it’s all over is that your client screaming over there yeah that’s good hey hey there Larry Larry needs a minute to come down off of the mess my name is Phoenix Wright here’s the story my first case is a fairly simple one a young woman was killed in her apartment the guy they arrested was the unlucky SAP dating her Larry Butz my best friend since grade school but I know better than anyone that he’s a good guy at heart that and I owe him one which is why I took the case to clear his name no one uses a gavel in state court the prosecution is ready your honor the defense is ready your honor mr. Wright this is your first trial is it not yeah yes your honor I’m a little nervous I think we should have a test to ascertain your readiness yes your honor that doesn’t happen the judge doesn’t give you a test to determine whether or not you’re capable of being an effective advocate for your client please state the name of the defendant in this case okay so Larry Butz the defendant well that’s Larry Butz Your Honor next question this is a murder trial tell me what’s the victim’s name who I know this one glad I read the case report cover to cover so many times that’s all it takes really is you just have to read the police report you’re totally ready to handle a murder trial that’s a joke no no way I forgot I’m drawing a total blank here Phoenix are you absolutely sure I’m sorry I can’t win her outfit it’s got to be this one the victim’s name is Cindy stone correct she died because she was hit with a blunt object correct the murder weapon was the statue of the thinker statute added to the record a statute in the shape of the thinker is rather heavy the prosecution calls the defendant the Constitution and it prevents the prosecution from not only being able to call the defendant to testify against himself but can’t even comment on the fact that the defendant has chosen not to take the stand this is a blatant violation of this man’s constitutional rights uh-oh Larry gets excited easily this could be bad which is one of the things you take into consideration as a defense attorney as to why you don’t put your client on the stand if they don’t come off well if they’re not gonna testify well then that’s gonna be extremely problematic for your case mr. Butz is it not true that the victim had recently dumped you we were great together we were Romeo and Juliet Cleopatra Mark Anthony I wasn’t dumped she just wasn’t taking my phone calls or seeing me ever Your Honor the victim’s Passport according to this she was in Paris until the day before she died the victim apparently arrived home from Paris on July 30th the day before the murder you went to the victim’s apartment on the day of the murder did you not well maybe I did and maybe I did it this is why I can’t watch TV shows that are based on the criminal justice system they go a lot like this have him answer honestly stop him from answering it is always the answer I’ll send him a signal no lie like a dog no that’s suborning perjury don’t do that this game should be called how to not defend somebody in a murder case um well see it’s like this I don’t remember you don’t remember well then we’ll just have to remind you we have a witness that can prove he did go to the victims apartment that day well that simplifies matters who’s your witness the man who found the victim’s body what why isn’t that guy a suspect just before making the gruesome discovery he saw the defendant fleeing the scene of the crime order order in the court never heard that ever not even once except for on TV mr. Payne the prosecution may call its witness on the day of the murder my witness was selling newspapers at the victim’s building please bring mr. Frank saw it to the stand let’s just see what happens here you sell newspaper subscriptions is this correct its objection that’s a leading question when you have a witness on direct examination you can only ask them open-ended questions I was going door-to-door selling subscriptions when I saw a man fleeing an apartment I thought he must be in a hurry because he left the door half open behind him thinking it’s strange I looked inside the apartment then I saw her lying there a woman not moving dead Ike wailed in fright and found myself unable to go inside I thought to call the police immediately however the phone in her apartment wasn’t working I went to a nearby park and found a public phone this takes place in the 80s there was no cell phone I remember the time exactly it was 1:00 p.m. the man who ran was without a doubt the defendant sitting right over there why wasn’t the phone in the victims apartment working your honor at the time of the murder there was a blackout in the building mr. Wright you may cross-examine the witness you know what to do clearly he does not know what to do so it was 1:00 o’clock p.m. which is in between the blackout oh she dies at 4:00 p.m. the autopsy report indicates that the time of death is sometime between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. which is a waste smaller window then there probably usually able to give you but that’s great because it narrows it down and it shows that if he saw her at 1:00 p.m. then he’s either mistaken or he’s lying you found the body at 1:00 p.m. you’re sure yes it was 1:00 p.m. for certain frankly I find that hard to believe okay don’t say that the autopsy notes the time of death at some time after 4:00 p.m. there was nobody to no body to find in 1 p.m. how do you explain this three-hour gap oh that Oh great job right way to put him on the spot see through one and their whole story falls apart that’s actually something that was taught to me in trial advocacy as well the devil is in the details so when I was a prosecutor and I was conducting cross-examination of eyewitnesses that were testifying on behalf of the defense they would tell one small lie in some of my cases and if I just keep unraveling that particular fact pattern they have to continue lying and then they eventually will catch themselves in a very obvious lie for the jury and that will discount all the rest of their testimony wait I remember now you see when I found the body I heard the time there was a voice saying the time it was probably coming from the television oh but it was three hours off wasn’t it I guess the victim must have been watching a video of a taped program that’s why I thought it was 1:00 p.m. terribly sorry about the misunderstanding notice anything suspicious oh she could have been watching television it was the electricity was out you couldn’t have heard a television or a video do you have an explanation for this mister saw it also not something that you happens during the cross-examination it would be left to the prosecutor to redirect this witness to explain any inconsistencies well wait I remember now mister saw it the court would prefer to hear inaccurate testimony from the very beginning it would prefer in this murder trial maybe potentially if you could not lie that would be really helpful let’s hear your testimony once more please really again sure actually I didn’t hear the time I saw it there was a table clock in the apartment wasn’t there yeah he’s asking himself I’m answering his own question in case you were wondering yeah the murder weapon the killer used it to hit the victim that must have been what I saw you saw a clock I guess that would explain it cross-examination hearing the time actually I didn’t hear the time I saw it there was a table clock in the apartment wasn’t there yeah the murder weapon that the killer used to hit the victim that must have been what I saw it’s a statue the murder weapon was in a clock it was this statue hey I I saw it there okay that’s a clock Your Honor if I may everyone’s sweating profusely as the witness stated this statute is indeed a clock the neck is a switch you just tilt it and it says the time out loud so the murder weapon was a table clock after all it appears that the witness’s testimony was correct this is a clock do you have any problems with his testimony now yes yes I have problems the only way he could have known the weapon was a clock is to hold it in his hand yet the witness testified that he never entered the apartment hmm indeed the witness knew it was a clock because he he went into the apartment you were inside of the apartment on the day of the murder oh yeah prove it prove I went in there I’ll do it better than that I can prove you were the one who killed her you struck her with the clock and the shock of the blow triggered the clocks voice that was the sound you heard well what’s the meaning of this that’s not a legal objection this is all baseless conjecture also not a legal objection did you strike the victim with the clock look I the clock I heard no I mean I saw a saw okay do you have any evidence again he is not the one that supposed to bring forth evidence the sound mister saw it heard was definitely this clock a fact which is clear if you simply try sounding the clock let’s sound the clock now here in this court I ask the court to listen very carefully I’d like to see the DNA report on the clock I think it’s 8:25 that is certainly a strange way to announce the time mr. Paine can you tell me what time it is now it’s 11:25 ACK as you can see this clock is exactly three hours slow precisely the discrepancy between what mr. saw it heard and the actual time of death you forgot one thing uh-oh what’s he talking about now while it may seem like that clock is running three hours slow it proves nothing how do you know it was running three hours slow on the day of the murder he’s right how am I going to prove that damn it I was so close and then the burden of proof shifted to the defense and all hell broke loose not so fast mr. saw it yeah I mean chief listen up right can you think of a reason as to why the clock would be three hours slow I mean I’m sure there’s a reason let’s see this evidence that proves why the clock was running slow I’m gonna go with that one The Blackout record excuse me this proves your claim how well it’s a plug in clock and the power went out maybe it was out for three hours and now it’s you know I can’t see what that evidence has to do with the clock dough that wasn’t it all right mr. right okay he’s got another chance here we go is it the passport the victim got home from Paris is there only a three-hour time change between Paris and here and she took the clock with her to Paris yeah it’s gotta be the passport let’s try that the victim had just returned home from abroad the day of the murder when it’s 4:00 p.m. here it’s 1:00 a.m. the next day there the clock wasn’t three hours slow it was nine hours fast oh it didn’t specify whether there was an AM or PM component I would have picked that first the victim and why did she take her clock with her to Paris the victim hadn’t reset her clock since returning home it was heavy do you know how expensive it would be in her luggage to take a heavy statue to Paris that’s why the time you heard when you struck her dead in her apartment was wrong proof enough for you mister saw it or should I say mister did it oh my god what happened to you she was signed up he just foamed at the mouth and then keeled over order order I say I have to say I’m impressed I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone complete a defense so quickly and find the true crop a culprit at the same time yes it’s all of our dream to have it actually go something like this thank you your honor at this point this is only a formality but this Court finds the defendant mr. Larry Butz not guilty what are these jurors doing there and with that this Court is adjourned victory not guilty verdict from the judge but whatever we’ll take it you know client gets to go home and deal with his Smith a habit or whatever is going on with his eyes but not guilty on the murder with cross-examination apparently the prosecution’s witness despite the fact that the client took the stand first and testify totally unrealistic the biggest issues that I have here is one is that the defendant took the stand as part of the prosecution’s case-in-chief that doesn’t happen ever he is constitutionally protected from having to do that and the other thing is that the burden shifted in the middle from having to have the prosecutor proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty to having the defense attorney prove that he did not do it and that this other person did oftentimes in our cases especially in a trial setting when we have a plausible other party that could potentially be a suspect you want to bring that out but you have to do it artfully and you want to do it within the rules of evidence none of the rules of evidence applied in this game some of the advice that the dominatrix gave she says essentially that once you find the lie it baguettes more lies and that’s true if you can exploit the one lie then it will ultimately unravel and you’ll be able to catch the person in a lie and that will demonstrate that they are a nun credible witness [Music]

14 comments on “Real Lawyer Goes To Court in Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney • Professionals Play

  1. The reason the burden of proof is on the defense (aside from it being a game mechanic) is because the game is a satire of the Japanese legal system and their extremely high conviction rate- it is basically ‘you have to prove you’re not guilty’.

  2. Just wait until you meet the young girls with their psychic abilities to contact the dead to solve future murder cases.

  3. This video is soo good, what makes it better is that she was also into the fun part of the game, while explaining how it happens in reality 10/10

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *