Trial Ideas

[clcman]

Spoiler : :

What about wizardry?

Sorry, I haven't played Ghost Trick.

Spoiler : :

???: "You're a wizard, Phoenix!"
I guess that would work, if you did it in such a way that it doesn't wreck suspension of disbelief. Hard to say anything about that without knowing more details, which I don't need. Just as long as wizards aren't considered "normal," you should be okay. (If they get too involved, then you have to start taking magic into account in your court shenanigans, and then you just have PL vs. AA all over again.)
As for Ghost Trick, it's system wouldn't actually work for your purposes, but the main character is a time-traveling ghost, so it's quasi-possible in canon. (For the record, he can only go back in time to four minutes before the death of someone who died in the last twenty-four hours, in case you were curious.)

[ApolloGrimoire]

Spoiler : :

Don't worry, I've got that sorted in her backstory.

[ApolloGrimoire]

Spoiler : I need to double check before I finish Case 1 :

Can a motive not be used on a killer if they have diplomatic immunity on their side?

[Enthalpy]

Spoiler : To ApolloGrimoire :

In the AA context, it simply means that the person with diplomatic immunity can't be tried, and the court probably will not entertain accusations against them. An AA court might allow you to bring evidence against a person with immunity to show your client isn't necessarily the killer, but Ace Attorney courts never declare a not guilty based off of "maybe it was someone else" alone, and courts tend to be reluctant to risk international incidents. If the other country complains, do you really want to be the judge that ticked them off?

[ApolloGrimoire]

Spoiler : :

What if I was to find another motive unrelated to the killer diplomatic immunity? That would work right?

[Enthalpy]

Spoiler : To ApolloGrimoire :

I don't understand. The issue isn't whether the motive is related to diplomatic immunity, but that the court will probably not be very lenient to testimony brought forward solely to cast suspicion on a person that can't be tried in American/Japanifornian courts. You can try accusing them to acquit somebody else, but again, "Ace Attorney courts never declare a not guilty based off of "maybe it was someone else" alone." Your best options are to either give the court another reason to care, or have the person-of-interest agree to go along with the questioning anyways. Unless they're an inconsequential person, the court will probably not want to risk dragging them into things without a very good reason.

[clcman]

Spoiler : @ ApolloGrimoire :

That said, it's certainly possible for someone with diplomatic immunity to testify in court, especially if you can show that they can provide critical testimony that no one else can. If you could get them to consent to testify, (by, say, exploiting their overconfidence in their immunity) that would also be a big help. Once they are on the stand, you could totally (with significant evidence) proceed to accuse them of the murder and even "prove" them guilty. The thing is, the police cannot arrest them and the court cannot try them (and they know that). So the killer would essentially get away. UNLESS the immunity is revoked. As you will recall with Alba (in one of the few legal concepts AA actually portrayed correctly), diplomatic immunity only goes as far as the country providing it is willing to accept responsibility. If an ambassador went on a shooting spree and then was released on diplomatic immunity, that would mean that his country of origin is officially condoning his crimes, which would generally bring international consequences. The country of origin may make a deal to try the ambassador in their own country, but an acquittal there would also make them look bad. In the very least, the United States (or wherever the person is a diplomat to) has the right to expel them from the country as "persona non grata."
In short, if you can get the immune person on the stand and thoroughly demonstrate that they committed the crime, I think it's reasonable that even an AA court might let the defendant go, even if the criminal's diplomatic immunity is not revoked. But you're going to need REALLY good evidence. It's sort of like accusing the prosecutor, or the Chief of Police. You can do it, but you better be able to go all the way.

[Ann-nna]

Spoiler : :

I don't want to give away much, but since I need to know, I'll ask: would aliens appear too out of place in an AA universe?

[Reecer6]

Spoiler : @Ann-nna :

Yeah, I'd say that's pretty abnormal.

[Enthalpy]

Spoiler : Ann-nna :

As Reecer said, it's abnormal. People would certainly react, but for that matter, spirit channeling is pretty abnormal as well. It won't be a case-stopper, but remember that people should not take this calmly.

[Ann-nna]

Spoiler : :

That's just what I feared. Welp, I can only hope people react positively. XD;

[clcman]

Spoiler : :

That's just what I feared. Welp, I can only hope people react positively. XD;

I'll expand on this. It's not that you can't have it. It's that you can't casually have it. You're talking about something that fundamentally alters the characters' understanding of reality and their place in the universe. It's not something that can just be thrown in at the last moment, except perhaps for highly absurdist comedic moments that intended to be and are treated as ridiculous.

*cough*[TRIAL NAME REDACTED]*cough*

The point is, if it is the FOCUS of your trial and a fundamental part of its concept, (and you handle it effectively and with everyone in-character) then there shouldn't be much of a problem. If you want a perfect example, there's Turnabout Storm (the AA/My Little Pony crossover thing on Youtube). The story starts with Phoenix being kidnapped by magical talking horses from another dimension, but because that's the key premise of the story, (and he in no way treats it as a normal thing) the audience just goes along with it. As long as you handle the situation in a somewhat reasonable manner, you should be fine.

[Ann-nna]

Well, it IS the focus of the trial, but the problem is, it's set in Japanifornia. Is there still hoping I can handle it?
At least nobody of the AA cast'll react to it as if it were normal. XD
Hmm... Guess I'll have to check out that Turnabout Storm.
Thanks for the advice!

[clcman]

Well, it IS the focus of the trial, but the problem is, it's set in Japanifornia. Is there still hoping I can handle it?

I don't see why you couldn't make a perfectly good case with that as a major point. Even if it's in Japanifornia, the aliens are, by definition, from somewhere else, right? Besides, we've had ghost prosecutor cases, cases in Hell, Batman cases, time travel cases, cases with a guy who can wear latex masks that let him perfectly impersonate people, cases inside Miles Edgeworth's subconscious mind, spiritual possession cases, Bird Demon cases, witch trial cases... and several of those are even canon! In general, I tend to think that there's no such thing as a bad idea*, just bad execution. If you do it well, I'm all for it. No pressure.

Spoiler : :

And, as subtly insinuated in an earlier comment, there actually HAS been an AAO fancase with aliens in Japanifornia. The problem is, it's such an intentionally ridiculous plot twist that telling you which one it is actually ruins the effect.

*Admittedly, there are a few concepts that are so difficult to do in an acceptable manner that it's essentially impossible, this is not one of them. Not by a long shot.

[ApolloGrimoire]

Spoiler : @ ApolloGrimoire :

That said, it's certainly possible for someone with diplomatic immunity to testify in court, especially if you can show that they can provide critical testimony that no one else can. If you could get them to consent to testify, (by, say, exploiting their overconfidence in their immunity) that would also be a big help. Once they are on the stand, you could totally (with significant evidence) proceed to accuse them of the murder and even "prove" them guilty. The thing is, the police cannot arrest them and the court cannot try them (and they know that). So the killer would essentially get away. UNLESS the immunity is revoked. As you will recall with Alba (in one of the few legal concepts AA actually portrayed correctly), diplomatic immunity only goes as far as the country providing it is willing to accept responsibility. If an ambassador went on a shooting spree and then was released on diplomatic immunity, that would mean that his country of origin is officially condoning his crimes, which would generally bring international consequences. The country of origin may make a deal to try the ambassador in their own country, but an acquittal there would also make them look bad. In the very least, the United States (or wherever the person is a diplomat to) has the right to expel them from the country as "persona non grata."
In short, if you can get the immune person on the stand and thoroughly demonstrate that they committed the crime, I think it's reasonable that even an AA court might let the defendant go, even if the criminal's diplomatic immunity is not revoked. But you're going to need REALLY good evidence. It's sort of like accusing the prosecutor, or the Chief of Police. You can do it, but you better be able to go all the way.

Spoiler : :

I've got most of what you mentioned covered.