Opening Statements and Detective Testimonies

Find detailed help from the AAO community, or write your own tutorials.

Moderator: EN - Forum Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Opening Statements and Detective Testimonies

Post by Enthalpy »

He dreamed that he stood in a shadowy Court,
Where the Snark, with a glass in its eye,
Dressed in gown, bands, and wig, was defending a pig
On the charge of deserting its sty.

The Witnesses proved, without error or flaw,
That the sty was deserted when found:
And the Judge kept explaining the state of the law
In a soft under-current of sound.

The indictment had never been clearly expressed,
And it seemed that the Snark had begun,
And had spoken three hours, before any one guessed
What the pig was supposed to have done.
~ Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark
You would think that when Simon Blackquill can have the judge give the opening statement, and Gumshoe bungles through his testimonies, opening statements and detective testimonies can't be very important. Not so! Opening statements and detective testimonies perform four vital functions that authors all too frequently ignore to their own peril! Even Shu Takumi can only let Godot skip the opening statement because Gumshoe's testimonies pick up the slack. This tutorial will identify the four functions, explain why the functions are important, and then show what a good opening statement and detective testimony look like by canon examples.

The Four Functions
Before reading any further, take some time to consider what you would say a good opening statements and detective testimony do for a case. When you have your thoughts, open the spoiler to see mine. (And of course, post here if you think something is missing!)
Spoiler : The functions are... :
...establishing the facts that contextualize or are foundational for the case, establishing the prosecution's theory, establishing the evidence for the prosecution's theory, and establishing tone and characterization.
First, what does it mean to establish the facts that contextualizing or are foundational for the case? There are several parts to this phrase, so let's decompose it:
* Case facts are facts relevant to the case.
* When a case fact is established, both parties can recall it and accept it as true for court arguments, e.g., that Cindy Stone was killed with the The Thinker statue.
* When a case fact is contextualizing, it is likely to be useful when thinking about the case, e.g., that Frank Sahwit is a door-to-door newspaper salesman is contextualizing because it helps you understand why he was in the apartment complex to witness anything.
* When one contextualizing fact assumes another contextualizing fact, we call the assumption a foundational fact, e.g., that Larry Butz was Cindy Stone's girlfriend is foundational to Cindy cheating on Larry. Foundational facts should always be discussed before the fact they are foundational to.
* Facts can be contextualizing or foundational at different levels of detail. For example, that Stone's apartment phone wasn't working is foundational for Sahwit using a pay phone instead, but that Sahwit used a pay phone is a fine detail! Facts given in the opening statement and detective testimony should be contextualizing or foundational to the case, broadly speaking.

In other words, the first function is to present the facts that are necessary or useful to thinking through the case as a whole in a way that the players remember them for the future.

Second, what does it mean to establish the prosecution's theory? Both parties must be able to recall what the prosecution thinks happened, and accept that the prosecution does indeed think that. The important thing is to cover this in necessary detail! What, for example, is Payne's theory in The First Turnabout?
Spoiler : Answer :
Cindy dumped Larry and started seeing other men, Larry went to her apartment, he discovered that Cindy was seeing other men, and then out of anger, he hit her with the nearby The Thinker statue, killing her. He fled, and then Sahwit discovered the scene.

Note how it's more detailed than a mere "he hit her"!
What does it mean to establish the evidence for the prosecution's theory? Unless the prosecutor is corrupt or incompetent, they have good reasons to come to the conclusion they do. The opening statement is a time to present them, so the player knows what they are up against. What, for example, is the evidence for the prosecution's theory in The First Turnabout?
Spoiler : Answer :
  • Payne has evidence that Cindy was seeing other men. (This is not presented to the court, to avoid cluttering the Court Record.)
  • Larry broke into a tantrum when Payne mentioned that Cindy was seeing other men. This affirms the motive.
  • Larry admits to going to Cindy's apartment on the day of the murder. This gives him opportunity.
  • The autopsy says Cindy died from bleeding when a blunt object hit her head, and The Thinker is a blunt object covered in blood.
  • A witness identifies Larry leaving Cindy's apartment.
  • A witness found Cindy's body in the apartment right after Larry left.
Lastly, what does it mean to establish tone and characterization? The opening statement can also establish a "feel" for the trial and the personalities of those who talk or inner monologue during this scene. Examples will be given in due course.

Why Do the Functions Matter?

Ace Attorney games have the player fight against the prosecution's case to prove their client's innocence. This being so, the four functions of the opening statement are indispensable!

When the case facts are established, you show the player what they have to work with. They can't argue against the prosecution if they're not given the basic knowledge of the case to put the prosecution's ideas to the test.

When the prosecution's theory is established, you show the player what they have to work against. Most of the player's time will be spent trying to find a vulnerability in the prosecution's case. To do this, it helps to know what the prosecution's case is!

When the prosecution's evidence is presented, you show the player what they have to work through. By the end of the case, the player will need to be able to explain away everything that incriminates the defendant. These are the puzzles that will occupy their time, and that until they are solved, will give the prosecution the advantage. These are thus necessary not only to direct the player's attention, but to make the prosecution threatening, which is vital for a turnabout!

When the characterization and tone are established, it shows the player what they have to work in. Players usually spend a good amount of time in trial, so giving them an entertaining characters and tone is quite important. The opening statement and first testimony are great places to show that off.

Example: 4-1

Enough theory. It's time for examples! First, look at case 4-1. I'll post the script and interject comments as we go.
Spoiler : Example Analysis :
Opening Statement wrote:Judge: If the prosecution would be so kind as to explain the charges. Mr. Payne?
Payne: To think, I saw you enter this room a fresh attorney, and now I'll see you leave in chains.
Phoenix: Ah, Winston Payne. Subtle as ever, I see.
Payne: Ahem.
This is characterization! Nobody would talk like Payne here unless they were trying to brag. He has so much experience that he was here when Phoenix started, and now, he'll send Phoenix to prison. Phoenix, though, undercuts Payne's confidence with a simple fake compliment, and Payne makes a show of pretending not to hear it. This shows that Phoenix is no longer going to be rattled, as he was in the original trilogy, and is a first hint that Payne's showiness is overcompensating for actual skill.
Payne: The crime occurred at the Borscht Bowl Club... a Russian restaurant.
Payne: The defendant, Phoenix Wright, took the victim, a customer...
Payne: ...and he hit him! Wham! On the head! Smack! Killed him cold.
We have a bit more characterization here. Payne takes an almost childlike glee in describing the death. Given how fixated he is on this and on seeing Wright leave in chains, it's clear that he is thinking much more about how right he is rather than how to prove anything.

Additionally, we get our first bits of actual information on the case.
Judge: Hmm... A customer at the restaurant, you say?
Judge: And the defendant, you say he was...?
Payne: The pianist for the club, it seems.
Judge: Phoenix Wright... A pianist?
Payne: This is the weapon that took the victim's life. A bottle of grape juice.
Payne: Grape juice is apparently our defendant's drink of choice.
Judge: The court accepts the deadly bottle as evidence.
At this point, Kristoph shows Apollo how to use the Court Record.

Right now, we're still at background information. This is all very important! Imagine how confusing it would be if the couple of lines about Phoenix being a pianist were removed.
Judge: So, the victim was a customer at this restaurant.
Judge: But just who was this, erm, "Shadi Smith" fellow?
Payne: We believe he was a traveler, Your Honor.
Judge: A... traveler?
Payne: According to his passport, he had been out of the country for a number of years.
Payne: He had only returned to this country recently, though his place of residence is unclear.
When the prosecution presents a fact, it should be backed up with evidence, unless the prosecution is called out for speculating. Saying that this is based off his passport makes this easier for the player to accept.
Judge: And he had some sort of connection with the defendant?
Payne: ...That, too, is unclear at present, Your Honor.
Payne: We believe they first met at the Borscht Bowl Club on the night of the crime.
Judge: If they had only just met, then why murder?
Describing the relation between the victim and the defendant is always important.

Don't have the prosecution shy away from points where they honestly don't know. Depending on how severe the uncertainty is, either point it out and explain why that doesn't break the prosecution's case, or find a way for the prosecution to know. Anything that looks like a weakness in the prosecution's case will draw player attention!

We cut the next few lines, which Kristoph summarizes for us.
Kristoph: It is true that the defendant was engaged in a game of poker with the victim.
Kristoph: Yet it was only that: a game, in the purest sense. A competition, Your Honor.
Payne: A... competition?
Kristoph: Yes, a test of wits, a silent clash of passions...
Kristoph: Only the cards, their backs wreathed in blue flame, know its final outcome.
Judge: ...Er, come again?
Payne: The cards on the table had blue backs, Your Honor.
Payne: I believe the defense was waxing poetic in an attempt to mystify those present...
Payne: ...and impress women.
More characterization! Payne's slowness in understanding "competition" and awkwardness with "impress women" again shows exactly how he is not as skilled as thinks. Meanwhile, we see that Kristoph is a cool, competent defense attorney.
Judge: That will be our first order of business here then:
Judge: To find out more about this fatal game of cards.
Phoenix: ...
Judge: Very well, Defendant.
Judge: You will testify to the court about the poker competition held the night of the crime.
The judge explicitly sets the motivation for the court's investigation. Motivating testimonies is always crucial!
Notice that the main things to come out of the opening statement were characterization and contextualizing facts. We're still lacking in evidence, and the prosecution theory of "Wham! On the head!" is vague. We may know how the guy died, but what was the state of the restaurant? How did they get to the poker game, anyways? The judge agrees that these questions merit investigation, and we enter the first cross-examination. Phoenix may not be a detective, but as this starts with pressing for background information, the testimony functions as a detective testimony. Since statement one is filler, we start with statement two.
Statement Two wrote:Phoenix: My real job is to take on interested customers over at the poker table.
Apollo: *HOLD IT!*
Apollo: They pay you just to play poker?
Phoenix: That would seem to be the case. I am a professional, after all.
Payne: Bah! Do I detect pride in that statement?
Payne: It's just hard for an honest, hard-working member of society like me to imagine...
Phoenix: Yes. Your imagination was always a bit limited, Winston.
Payne: Wh-What!?
Phoenix: I've played poker for seven years in that little room.
Phoenix: And I've never. Lost. Once.
Apollo: Wha--?
Phoenix: You see why the customers come now?
Phoenix: "Defeat the undefeated poker champion"...
Phoenix: It's quite a draw.
Phoenix: That is, I'm quite a draw.
Apollo: Wait, you've never lost once? Not even one time!?
Phoenix: As I said, I'm a professional.
Apollo: (He's played poker for seven years and not lost once...)
Apollo: (Is that even possible!?)
First, we have additional characterization. Again, Payne tries to put himself on a pedestal, only for Phoenix to effortlessly send him back to earth. We now also start seeing Apollo... Who distinctly does not have much presence.

We also get more important background! We know why Phoenix Wright, piano player, would be playing poker with a customer.
Statement Three wrote:Phoenix: The room where we play and the competition in there are the club's main attractions.
Apollo: *HOLD IT!*
Apollo: The room in the crime scene photo... is an attraction?
Phoenix: It has quite a history, actually.
Phoenix: The Borscht Bowl Club used to be a gathering spot for black market types back in the day.
Apollo: B-Black market?
Phoenix: All in the past. Things like the black market are only on the silver screen nowadays.
Phoenix: Suffice it to say that there were a lot of deals being made under the table.
Phoenix: Right there in that room.
We again see Apollo's timidity through stammering, asking questions as if she's unsure of himself, and lack of complete sentences.

I cut some additional chatter about the room. Takumi is planning several cross-examinations ahead, when this information about the room becomes critical. Glancing over it now makes it far less jarring when he brings this up.
The remaining statements are very similar - they introduce information that becomes useful when Phoenix opens up more. Let's skip ahead to the conversation after pressing.
Adding New Statement wrote:Judge: This competition you're talking about...
Judge: I believe the court understands the nature of the game sufficiently.
Apollo: Th-That's right!
Apollo: It was a simple game, after all!
Judge: Are you sure?
Apollo: Huh?
Judge: People are not murdered over "simple games", Mr. Justice.
Judge: Defendant. You were in the room the very moment that the crime occurred...
Judge: Yet you claim no connection to the crime?
Phoenix:... Now that's strange.
Judge: What's strange?
Phoenix: I was testifying about the competition that night.
Phoenix: Asking me about the crime at this point is against the rules, Your Honor.
Phoenix: Of course, I expected to hear a cry of "Objection!" from the defense...
Apollo: Ack!
Apollo: (Argh! I completely let that one slip by!)
Kristoph: Don't despair yet, Justice.
Apollo: S-Sir?
Kristoph: Wright. There's something I'd like made clear.
Kristoph: Namely, your connection to the case at hand. And I'd like to hear it from you.
Phoenix: ... Sure, why not?
Judge: Very well. The defendant will amend his testimony.
Apollo: (Just one little press...)
Apollo: (...and I've got myself a whole new testimony!)
This conversation does two things very well! First, it further cements the impressions of Kristoph, Apollo, and Phoenix that I've discussed so far. From this point on, it will be assumed that the reader can see this characterization points themselves. If it is not clear to you how this dialogue cements those impressions, reread what's written here until you do, and ask questions if necessary.

Second, it has Phoenix remind the court about changing topics. Take it to heart! When explaining X, changing topics to Y without a distinct transition often confuses players. Every time you change topics, make it clear that you are doing so, and what you are changing to.
We now cut to after Apollo has pointed out that Phoenix's fingerprints are on the murder weapon.
After Objecting to Added Statement wrote:Apollo: What's so strange about fingerprints on a bottle in a restaurant?
Judge: Well, that's true. The prints alone don't prove he did it--
Payne: *OBJECTION!*
Payne: Oh, they wouldn't prove a thing... if they were normal fingerprints!
Apollo: ...Huh!?
Payne: But the fingerprints on the murder weapon were upside-down!
Judge: "Upside-down"? What does that mean?
Payne: It means he was holding the bottle inverted! And there can be only one reason for that!
Payne: ...Yes. To brain someone with the bottle!
Now we get the first piece of truly incriminating evidence against the defendant, the murder weapon with his fingerprints on it, in the position they would be if he were to use it as a weapon!

Payne didn't make a big deal of the fingerprints until now, which is a good thing. Saving the reveal now makes it more dramatic! Since the information wasn't essential, hiding it until now is perfectly safe!
So far, so good! Let's check how we are on the four functions:
We're good on the case facts.
The prosecution's theory is clear. Phoenix is a professional player poker. A customer challenged him to a match, and the two went to play in a separate room. (We learn shortly that a third person, the dealer, was present.) Something happened in the game (Phoenix losing, as we learn soon in a press conversation), and Phoenix whacked the victim with a bottle of grape juice.
The evidence is clear. Phoenix's fingerprints are on the murder weapon, and they're inverted, which are consistent with using it as a weapon. We also learn shortly after that the prosecution has an eyewitness to Phoenix committing the murder. Further, Olga's photograph supports the prosecution's idea that Phoenix lost, which provides the motive.
The characterization has been established as well!

And, that's how they do it!

Example: 3-4

Our next example is 3-4, which has a traditional detective testimony.

The lobby conversation tells us only that the defendant is an escaped death row inmate accused of killing a police officer. Edgeworth's opening statement isn't particularly informative either. We learn that years ago, the defendant pushed a girl off a bridge to her death, and the victim's testimony earned the defendant the death sentence for this crime. This led to the defendant wanting revenge: the motive. However, none of this tells us much about the crime! This gets remedied by Detective Gumshoe.
Spoiler : Example Analysis :
Pre-Dialogue Talk wrote:Edgeworth: Witness... State your name and occupation.
Gumshoe: Gumshoe. Dick Gumshoe. I'm the homicide detective in charge of the case, sir!
Gumshoe: I finally got promoted to the detective division half a year ago!
Mia: I don't believe anyone asked you about that.
Gumshoe: Hey, ma'am! You got any idea how much work it takes... ......
Mia: Wh-What is it?
Gumshoe: You... Y-You're really gorgeous...
Mia: Excuse me?
Gumshoe: No, seriously... My heart... It's aching for you...
Edgeworth: Detective. Pull yourself together and try to be professional. Otherwise...
Edgeworth: I'll write you up on contempt so quick that something other than your heart will ache!
Gumshoe: Urk... O-OK, I-I got it!
We open with characterization. Edgeworth is professional and authoritative, openly threatening Gumshoe when he's out of line. Seasoned Ace Attorney fans will recognize this as a trace of von Karma's influence. Mia has herself collected and has a clear enough mind to call the detective on relevance, though she isn't as unflappable as Edgeworth appears to be. Gumshoe seems to be his usual self, although readily distracted by attractive women in his younger days.
Judge: ...Now, Detective. Tell us about the incident.
Gumshoe: Yes, sir! Right away!
Gumshoe: The victim was Sergeant Valerie Hawthorne, a veteran on the police force.
Gumshoe: She was stabbed in the back with a knife and died from excessive blood loss.
Judge: That much is already stated in the autopsy report.
Judge: The court would like to hear more details about the incident itself.
That may be, but it's good to have a recap here, so we can get the information organized. Disclosing this information in small bits and pieces separated through time is usually a bad idea.
Gumshoe: Yes, sir! I gotcha! OK! Let's take a look at this aerial map of the area here!
Gumshoe: This is a sketch of Dusky Bridge, an old suspension bridge.
Gumshoe: And the river that runs under there is Eagle River.
Gumshoe: The victim and the defendant met there... On top of the bridge.
Gumshoe: After stabbing her in the back, the killer carried the victim back to his car.
Gumshoe: He was recaptured at a police checkpoint as he was trying to make his getaway, sir.
This gives us a good rough overview of the prosecution's theory. We can fill in the details in the following press conversation.
Judge: Hmm... I see...
Judge: Was the victim's blood found on the bridge?
Gumshoe: The victim, Sergeant Valerie Hawthorne, was wearing a thick coat, sir.
Gumshoe: Unfortunately, no traces of blood were found on the bridge.
Judge: Hmm...
Judge: Mr. Edgeworth. I warn you that I absolutely despise conjecture.
Judge: If there was no blood on the bridge, then you have no proof that they even met there!
Edgeworth: Your Honor.
Edgeworth: If you would listen to the testimony we have prepared, I'm sure you'll be convinced.
Edgeworth: The two of them most certainly did meet on the bridge that day...
Judge: Why, Mr. Edgeworth...
Judge: I'm not sure I like you wagging your finger at me as though I were some hoser!
Again, we have good characterization. The Canadian judge appears brighter than his brother, thinking ahead, asking questions accordingly, and calling the prosecution on points that don't convince him from the start. While his brother does that, this judge doing it so early is a tip that he'll be sterner, although his Canadianisms will keep the trial from getting completely dull!

This also motivates the following testimony: the prosecution needs to prove this meeting on the bridge happened, or else the setting for the crime is wrong. Note that the prosecution has to prove this, and they cannot get away with simply saying it happened.
Now let's see how the detective testimony fills in the details.
Statement One wrote:Gumshoe: On the day of the incident, an unknown person phoned the sergeant and asked to meet.
Mia: *HOLD IT!*
Mia: This "unknown person"... You have no idea who it might be, right?
Gumshoe: Sorry, but I'm afraid I do!
Mia: What...?
Gumshoe: The one who called Sergeant Hawthorne was the defendant, Terry Fawles!
Judge: Wh-Wh-Whaaat! The defendant...! The defendant called her!?
Gumshoe: Sergeant Hawthorne was a very thorough person, sir!
Gumshoe: She left a note about her phone call with Mr. Fawles.
Mia: A note...?
Gumshoe: Yeah, a top-secret memo that she left on her desk.
Judge: Hmm...
Judge: According to this note, it seems the one who called her to the bridge was indeed...
Judge: ...the defendant, Terry Fawles!
Mia: Nngh! (Whose bright idea was it to keep that note from me!?)
This is an excellent trap from the prosecution and illustrates why you might hide a particular fact.

We cut the rest of the press statement, as characterization has been hammered home by now.
Statement Two wrote:Gumshoe: Sergeant Hawthorne went to Dusky Bridge at the designated time and met with Mr. Fawles.
Mia: *HOLD IT!*
Mia: A bridge up in the mountains? But why meet there?
Gumshoe: Because it is a very important place to the defendant, that's why.
Judge: What do you mean by that?
Edgeworth: If you remember, 5 years ago, the defendant kidnapped a young girl.
Edgeworth: He was chased onto a bridge... And it was there that he killed his hostage.
Edgeworth: And the place where all of this occurred is, of course, Dusky Bridge.
Mia: ...!
Gumshoe: The very place where Sergeant Hawthorne arrested and handcuffed Mr. Fawles.
Armando: Ha...! Returning to the scene of the crime... How nostalgic.
This makes it easier for us to remember details of the old crime, when it becomes relevant. For the prosecution, this just makes Fawles looks worse.
Statement Three wrote:Gumshoe: And that's where she was brutally murdered, sir.
Mia: *HOLD IT!*
Mia: Was the body of the victim discovered right away?
Gumshoe: Yeah. We were really on the ball.
Gumshoe: We found the criminal within one hour of the murder.
Mia: (...Wait a second. Isn't there something weird about that...?)
Armando: The location was a suspension bridge, up in the mountains.
Armando: So how did they find out about the crime so quickly...?
Gumshoe: She left a note on her desk about it.
Much of this conversation has been cut for brevity.

This information isn't particularly new, since we already knew about the note, but it does add background information for the police's movements, which is helpful for the player to organize what happened.
The remaining points require no in-depth analysis. After condescension by Diego, Mia points out that the victim was supposed to be wearing a scarf, which is missing. Edgeworth reveals the scarf and then gets on to the next testimony. There, we learn that there is also a witness to the crime.
So, how are the four functions?

Foundational case facts? Check.
Prosecution's theory? Valerie Hawthorne was responsible for sending Terry Fawles, a murderer, to jail. Fawles escaped police custody, hijacked a car, and summoned Valerie to the scene of his original crime. While there, they had a fight, and he stabbed her in the back for revenge. He then stowed the body in the car and was caught by the police. Sounds complete to me.
Prosecution's evidence?
* The original trial is undisputed.
* Fawles is a convicted murderer, which means he may well do it again.
* Fawles has demonstrably lied to the police.
* Police can attest to Fawles escaping.
* The hijacking victims can attest to Fawles stealing their car.
* The note left by Valerie shows Fawles summoned her.
* The choice of meeting place shows his original crime was on his mind.
* "She put me on death row" is a very good motive for murder.
* Valerie's body was found in the trunk of the car he was driving when the police recovered him.
* Nobody else, not even the police, knew of the mountain meeting until shortly before.
* The mountain is remote, so a potential "real killer" would not stumble across it by chance.
* Autopsy confirms the cause of death as stabbing.
Edgeworth's theory is quite well supported!
As for characterization, though I haven't pointed it out, we've already seen that abundantly. This is a very good opening statement and testimony!

Example: 2-2

Next, we briefly consider an example of a detective testimony for a case with an investigation, where the player knows more going into the trial. The principles are all the same, and the focus here is on the minor modifications necessary.
Spoiler : Example Analysis :
We'll skip the opening statement, which does not go into the case facts, and start with Gumshoe's case summary.
Case Summary wrote:von Karma: Explain to the court the details of this murder.
Gumshoe: Y-Yes, sir! Um, if everyone would please look at this map.
Gumshoe: The Channeling Chamber has no windows and the door was locked shut.
Gumshoe: At the time of the murder, only the victim and the defendant were in the room.
Judge: What were they doing in there?
Gumshoe: Um... They... Well, they were channeling... a spirit... Sir.
Judge: Ch-Channeling a spirit??
Phoenix: (The look of disbelief on the judge's face is...)
Gumshoe: *ahem* Anyway, a few minutes after the channeling started,
Gumshoe: gunshots were heard coming from inside the room, sir.
Gumshoe: A few of the witnesses broke the door down, and rushed into the room.
Judge: Ah, and that's when they found that the victim was already dead, correct?
Judge: Hmm, I believe this is one of the most open and shut cases I have ever presided over.
Gumshoe does not discuss background necessary for the murder that the player already knows, like what the Channeling Chamber is, but for the murder itself, this isn't much different from in a case without an investigation, like 3-4. After this, we move to Gumshoe testifying about the cause of death.
Statement One wrote:Gumshoe: The direct cause of death was a pistol shot to the forehead, sir.
Phoenix: *HOLD IT!*
Phoenix: The murder weapon, Detective Gumshoe. Whose pistol was it?
Gumshoe: It was the victim's.
Phoenix: The victim? Now, why would he have...
von Karma: *OBJECTION!*
von Karma: "Why would he have a pistol?" Who cares?
von Karma: The point that you are missing is whose fingerprints are on that pistol.
von Karma: If you're not already paying attention to that, then I suggest you start.
Judge: Fingerprints? There were fingerprints?
Gumshoe: Along with the victim's, the defendant, Maya Fey's were also on the grip, sir.
Judge: Hmm.
Judge: So the defendant's fingerprints were left on the murder weapon...
Phoenix: (Hmm... I walked right into her hands there.)
Statement Two wrote:Gumshoe: The shot was fired from point-blank range.
Phoenix: *HOLD IT!*
Phoenix: Point blank, huh? So about how far away was it?
Gumshoe: It was anywhere between 12 to 20 inches away.
Phoenix: And how do you know he was shot at point blank?
von Karma: Tsk, tsk, tsk. Mr. Phoenix Wright.
von Karma: I grow tired of the foolish foolery of the foolish fools of this foolish country...
Phoenix: E-Excuse me!?
von Karma: Gunpowder burn.
Phoenix: ...Gunpowder burn?
von Karma: When something is shot from point blank, a burn area is left around the bullet hole.
Gumshoe: Gunpowder exploding is what makes a bullet fire, and that gets real hot, pal.
Gumshoe: And there were definitely some gunpowder burns left on the victim's forehead!
Phoenix: (Wow... Never knew that... Live and learn, I guess...)
Statement Three wrote:Gumshoe: But before the victim was shot, sir, he was stabbed in the chest.
Phoenix: *HOLD IT!*
Phoenix: Stabbed... And what was he stabbed with?
Gumshoe: A fruit knife.
Judge: I see. And whose knife was it?
Gumshoe: It looks like it belongs to the Feys, sir.
Gumshoe: And of course, Maya Fey's fingerprints are all over it.
Judge: Hmm... All over it, huh?
Phoenix: (Urk. This does not look good...)
von Karma: Ha ha ha. What will you do now, Mr. Phoenix Wright?
Statement Four wrote:Gumshoe: The wound was very severe, but not enough to cause instantaneous death.
Phoenix: *HOLD IT!*
Phoenix: How severe was the wound?
Gumshoe: If it had been half an inch more to the right, it would've hit the victim's heart.
Gumshoe: After a stab like that, it's impossible to fight back, let alone stand.
Phoenix: (This testimony makes Maya look like she had stabbed him with the intent to kill...)
Statement Five wrote:Gumshoe: The murderer used the pistol to finish the victim off after the stabbing.
Phoenix: *HOLD IT!*
Phoenix: Are you sure he was stabbed first, then shot?
Gumshoe: Yup. Sure as sure can be.
Gumshoe: One look at the wounds and you'd come to the same conclusion too, pal.
von Karma: A fool is a fool who will only listen to the foolish opinions of other foolish fools...
von Karma: A pistol shot to the forehead at point blank is certainly enough to kill instantly.
von Karma: Does it matter, then, which was first?
von Karma: Think a little more before you open that big mouth of yours, Mr. Phoenix Wright!
Phoenix: (Grr... What a pain...)
Throughout all of these press conversations, the focus is on new material, not rehashing the old, but we still have a detailed testimony about the crime scene and the key evidence!
So when we have an investigation, some of the background information can be cut, but the prosecution should still explain the crime clearly, with the focus being on new information and damning evidence.

Example: 5-1

Now we move on to the bad example. Unfortunately, the canon games have these too. This case frequently has side-conversations and tangents, so I've pruned those from the transcript for brevity.
Spoiler : Example Analysis :
Opening Statement wrote:Payne: The incident occurred yesterday here at this very courthouse, in Courtroom No. 4.
Payne: At that time, the trial for a certain bombing was being held in Courtroom No. 4.
Judge: Ah, yes. I was presiding over that trial as well.
Judge: And Mr. Justice was there as the lawyer for the defense.
Payne: A bomb that was being presented as evidence suddenly went off during the trial.
Payne: It was a terrible incident... and Courtroom No. 4 was completely destroyed.
Payne: Fortunately, we were able to start evacuation procedures before the explosion started.
Payne: Just a few seconds more and it would've turned into a horrific loss of human life.
Judge: But there was, in fact, one death, was there not?
Payne: That is correct, Your Honor. When Courtroom No. 4 was examined after the blast...
Payne: ...the body of Detective Candice Arme was discovered.
Payne: She was to take the stand as a witness later in the trial.
Judge: I suppose she wasn't able to evacuate in time. What a terrible tragedy.
Payne: The victim's body was found near the entrance to the courtroom.
Payne: I suspect she stayed until the very end to help guide the others out safely.
Payne: Your Honor, allow me to submit as evidence the victim's autopsy report.
Payne: ...and details about the bomb.
We don't get a good character sense for Gaspen in this scene, but that comes in elsewhere.

This opening statement gives a rough overview: A bomb being used as court evidence detonated, and a witness died. While adequate, this leaves open several questions. Does the old case have any relevance to this one? How was the bomb detonated? How did they note the bomb's impending detonation to evacuate? Why would Juniper do this? What was the layout of the scene, exactly? These are all important questions, but there's still time to answer them.
We waste little time in bringing Juniper to the stand and establishing that she was at the courtroom when the bomb detonated.
Juniper's Interrogation wrote:Payne: Now, now, Your Honor. Don't let her seemingly innocent appearance fool you.
Payne: The defendant had a motive for committing this crime.
Juniper: Th-That's not true...! I don't have any kind of motive...!
Juniper: A-And I-I didn't even know the lady who was killed...!
This characterizes Gaspen. Few other prosecutors would be audacious enough to condescend to the judge.
Payne: I admit the investigation didn't turn up any connection between the victim and defendant.
Payne: However, that doesn't matter.
Payne: The only thing that does is that her objective was the destruction of Courtroom No. 4 itself.
On its own, this is good! Gaspen addresses a weakness in the case directly. This means the player won't be confused. Let's see how he does it.
Athena: Hey, what's that supposed to mean?! Why in the world would Ms. Woods want to do that?!
Payne: Mm-hmm. That's a very good question, coming from a novice such as yourself.
Payne: But first, a question for the defendant. Have you ever been brought up on false charges?
Woods: What?! Wh-Why, yes... Yes, I have...
Payne: And did that experience cause you to harbor a grudge against the court system?
Athena: Now, wait just one minute! If that kind of thing was a motive for blowing things up...
Athena: ...then every one of our clients would turn into bombers.
Judge: That's a valid point. We wouldn't have a single courthouse left standing in the land.
Payne: I concede the accused isn't the only one who might bear resentment against the courts.
Payne: But Ms. Woods is the only person who could have committed this crime.
...So close. The game points out that this motive is speculative, but then changes the topic. Whenever the defense has an objection, the prosecution should address it directly, so the player knows why their argument won't change the judge's mind. In this case, Gaspen should have said something like, "Not all people would plant a bomb for that, no, but some people would. And we have decisive evidence that proves the defendant did. If she had a weak reason, so be it. She is the only possible suspect." Because Gaspen did not do that, the player is all too likely to remember, "We pointed out that the motive didn't make sense, but Gaspen just ignored it." Contrast against the alternative, where the defense's argument has been refuted, and the player will instead remember, "The motive seems suspicious, but I can't rule it out that easily..."
Payne: Why? Because we have found some decisive evidence that proves the defendant's guilt.
Payne: It involves a very unique aspect of the bomb itself, Your Honor.
Judge: And what exactly was so unique about it?
Payne: Hmm...
Payne: Why don't we have Ms. Cykes answer that question?
We cut a long segment in which Gaspen is obnoxious. Athena is indignant and triumphant as she answers the question. The characterization is workable, but it's lacked the depth of the dialogue in the other cases
Athena: Mr. Payne! What kind of simpleton do you take me for?!
Athena: It was stuffed inside a stuffed animal.
Athena: Its evil intentions covered up by a cute exterior!
Payne: Heh heh. Very good. Have a cookie.
See a condescending line from Payne and Athena's tendency to talk emotionally. It's a decent start on character, but lacks detail.
Payne: The bomb that went off in the courtroom was indeed hidden inside a stuffed animal.
Judge: Yes, as I recall, the bomb was stuffed inside a stuffed animal the whole time.
This is a very strange point, and it's a mistake on Yamazaki's part that this is not elaborated on. I assume that the bomb was in the stuffed animal as part of the previous case? This just has me wondering more about the previous case.
Judge: I never even got to take a look at it.
Judge: But what connection does this impish elephant have with the defendant?
Payne: The answer to that question lies in another piece of evidence, which I have here.
Judge: And what, pray tell, is this? It appears to be a little singed?
Payne: It's a tail, Your Honor. The tail of a poor victim of the explosion.
Payne: It belongs to this stuffed animal.
Payne: It's called the Phony Phanty. A rather unpleasant name, if you ask me.
Payne: The Phony Phanty's tail is made of vinyl cloth.
Payne: And we found something very interesting on its surface... the defendant's fingerprints.
Payne: The Phony Phanty provided the prosecution with all the evidence we needed.
Payne: It clearly proves that the accused handled the bomb.
Judge: Ms. Woods, do you have an explanation for this?
Juniper: ...I... I don't understand... I... *cough, cough*
Payne: How about you, Ms. Cykes?
Payne: Do you have any plausible explanation to refute this decisive piece of evidence?
Athena: W-Well, I... uh...
Payne: If you can't produce an answer, we could always go straight to the ruling, if you prefer.
I can't produce an answer either, but this is largely because I'm lacking a lot of context about the case. All those unanswered questions from earlier are nagging at me. The only one that Payne has answered as the motive, and that is unsatisfying. Right now, I'm still missing a lot of details about the prosecution's theory.
Phoenix takes Athena's place, and the trial cuts to the first witness. Before the testimony, the witness briefly mentions that he discovered the crime scene, but this is easily forgotten, as the witness then testifies about something completely different and irrelevant to the case. He remarks that the bomb can be detonated with timer or remote and provides a very brief explanation of how to use the timer, but the obvious contradiction and the vagueness makes this lone sentence harder to follow, much less remember, later in the case. After the testimony, we get the following exchange to finish the background information:
Post CE-1 Testimony wrote:Judge: If I have this correct, the prosecution's argument is that...
Judge: ...someone reactivated the bomb before it was brought into the courtroom.
Judge: What I don't understand, Mr. Payne, is why you believe that person to be Ms. Woods.
A good point! The judge spots the problems with the prosecution's evidence and unclear theory. Normally, this would be fine, but because Gaspen put so much pressure on Juniper earlier, it comes across as confusing rather than simply something Gaspen hasn't gotten to yet.
Payne: That's simple, Your Honor: Mr. Tonate happened to be there when it happened.
Payne: He was there when the defendant rearmed the bomb.
Judge: What's this, now?!
Tonate: It happened before the trial started.
Tonate: It was when Detective Arme and I were transporting the bomb.
Tonate: We brought the bomb to the lobby for the defense.
Tonate: Bomb = Evidence. The lawyer wanted to see it before the start of the trial.
This makes me want to know about that past trial, more and more... But we never get information about it!
Payne: Looking for a chance to get at the bomb, Ms. Woods was already there in the lobby.
Payne: Her goal was surely to rearm the bomb and steal the remote switch.
Her goal was surely...? That's speculative. So far, Payne isn't presenting much actual evidence.
And wait, remote? But you were just talking about the timer earlier.
Phoenix: The remote switch?
Tonate: Yes. The switch that controls the bomb remotely. Duh.
Tonate: It has been missing ever since the incident.
Tonate: I am partially to blame.
Tonate: I left the bomb and remote on top of the transport case...
Tonate: ...and they were rearmed and stolen when I was talking with the lawyer.
Payne: The defendant then used the remote from inside the courtroom to start the timer.
This section is confusing because "rearming" the bomb and "using" the remote are vague. Is rearming specific to using the timer vs the remote? How would you rearm it, anyways? Could Juniper even know how to move the wires around? How would she do that without Tonate noticing? What did Tonate do, anyways? Why do we think it was her, again?
Phoenix: How can you assert so unequivocally that the bomb was rearmed in the lobby?
Payne: The bomb was safely secured in the transport case.
Payne: The only time it was outside of the case was in that lobby.
Payne: Therefore, that was the one and only opportunity anyone had to meddle with it.
So when Payne said that he knows Juniper rearmed the bomb because Tonate was there when she did it, he really meant that according to Tonate's testimony, he didn't notice much of anything, but he doesn't think anybody else could have? Those are very different things.
Phoenix: Someone other than Mr. Tonate could have opened the case and taken the bomb out.
Tonate: Impossible. The transport case is assigned exclusively to me.
Tonate: Do you see this number here?
Tonate: That is my identification number.
Tonate: And I have the only key that can open the case.
...Does he mean that he knows for certain the bomb was unarmed when it came in, only he could unlock it, and the only time it could possibly have been unlocked was during the defense lobby meeting, where he saw nothing? If so, he should have said that!
Phoenix: Nevertheless! Mr. Payne's assertion is nothing more than conjecture.
Phoenix: You have no proof that it was Ms. Woods who stole the remote switch.
Payne: And by the same token, you have no proof that it wasn't her.
Payne: But what I DO have is a piece of evidence that proves the defendant handled the bomb.
Due to the rest of this conversation being a mess, it's hard to call Gaspen intimidating.
Okay, let's go through our big four:
Do we have the foundational facts? No, we're missing details on where the bomb was when it went off and the details of rearming it.
Do we have the prosecution's theory? Only really vaguely. Juniper was so angry over being falsely accused of a crime earlier that she decided to blow up the courtroom. She came to the defense lobby for some reason. (Was this a premeditated crime or not?) Then, Tonate brought in a bomb in a stuffed animal, which was evidence. Then... Tonate doesn't testify to what happened, but the prosecution says Juniper stole the remote. She then somehow got to the bomb in the locked box (how?) and did something with it that may have involved rewiring it even though she lacked bomb knowledge. She did all this without Tonate noticing. She then later used the remote to detonate the bomb when she was... presumably in the courthouse, which would have blown her up too, and got rid of the switch somehow. What a mess!
What about evidence? This too is weak.
* Juniper was falsely accused in the past.
* The bomb in the stuffed animal was evidence for the past case.
* Juniper's fingerprints are on what appear to be the tail of the stuffed animal..
* Tonate testifies that nobody else had an opportunity to activate the bomb, but the details are unclear.
The "exclusive opportunity" argument falls apart due to the unclarity, and the prosecution's case is weak!
Lastly is characterization. While this is better than the other three, it's more repetitive and less detailed than in the other cases. Part of this is due to the rambling sections that I cut out, but adding those in would only make the other sections harder to remember!

So, the opening statements and detective testimonies in 5-1 were weak, to put it mildly.

Summary

For opening statements and detective testimonies, or more generally, when a new topic opens up that requires new information, the following four functions must be fulfilled: establishing the facts that contextualizing or are foundational for the case, establishing the prosecution's theory, establishing the evidence for the prosecution's theory, and establishing tone and characterization. Collectively, these mean that the player knows the information they have to work with, the theory they have to work against, the evidence and conundrums they have to work through, and the case environment they have to work on. These must be clear from the start.

There are a variety of ways these goals can be met or failed at. Some things we've seen from the summaries:
Spoiler : Points from Summaries :
Contextualizing Facts
* Start with the very basics of the case, and then go onto a more detailed view of the basics before moving on. The player needs the three sentence summary before they get a "good working knowledge" of the case before they can probe a witness on a particular point.
* Give related information at once. Fragmenting it, like in 5-1, makes it harder to follow.
* A good reason, such as a trap from the prosecution or not overloading the player, is always needed to not give out a fact.
* Contextualizing facts, like the Hydeout details in 4-1, that only become relevant later should be brought up, but not lingered on.
* Any topic changes should be made explicit, to minimize confusion.
* The motivation for testimonies that get out these facts should always be clear.
* Any time a player thinks a fact that hasn't been covered at all would be useful, it's a problem. Have the fact brought up, if only to discredit it.
* Accidentally changing topics is bad. Make sure that when introducing a new topic, the introduction is accurate to the topic to be introduced.

Prosecution's Theory
* The theory should be as clear as possible, and presented quickly.
* Ambiguities or possible contradictions should be negated as quickly as possible. Attempts to brush aside problems will distract the player.
* The theory should be justified, based on the evidence.
* Give the "core" of the theory at once, and then fill in the details.
* Many of the contextualizing fact rules are inherited.

Prosecution's Evidence
* The prosecution should back up everything they say with evidence, unless it's a very detailed point, and substantiating it would only clutter the Court Record.
* The evidence should be a basis to justify the theory in great detail.

Tone and Character
* Characterization should have a fairly nuanced character consistently come out through small details. Not only is Payne conceited, but his conceit comes from "superiority through experience." He attempts to project this, but his efforts to do so betray how bad he is at it. (See how he gloats about seeing Phoenix as a rookie, his confidence in seeing Phoenix leaving in chains, his attempt to top Kristoph by calling his metaphor, the awkwardness of his explanation...) This is just a quick version!
* Not bringing out those details leads to boring characters. After hearing that Gaspen is a jerk the first several times...
* Many decisions can impact the mood, like whether or not the prosecutor uses traps. Think through decisions carefully!
If there are examples that you want to take on yourself, feel free to post them here, but spoiler them so your examples aren't ruined for others! I highly recommend working through 5-2 here.

Credits:
Editing and helpful discussion by Ferdielance
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
Gosicrystal
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:54 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: Español, English

Re: Opening Statements and Detective Testimonies

Post by Gosicrystal »

Nice guide! I wrote an opening statement today for Blackquill and was kind of worried about the amount of proper detail, because he quickly finishes the statement, calls a witness whose pressing conversations contain strongly incriminating evidence, and leaves the motive for the murder for later.

Should the prosecutor always present the majority of the case's weight, or can he/she rely heavily on the informant's testimony to present their case?
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: Opening Statements and Detective Testimonies

Post by Enthalpy »

I can't remember a case, canon or fanmade, that does that (maybe I'm forgetting?), but it isn't necessarily a problem. It's reasonably common for prosecutors to use detectives to present their case, instead of giving a long opening statement. See 3-3. The strange thing is using a laywitness for this. If the witness has enough knowledge of the crime that these facts would come out of the cross-examination, I'd say it can work.

That said, make sure the characters remark about how a motive has yet to be presented!
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
Ferdielance
Posts: 778
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:46 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

Re: Opening Statements and Detective Testimonies

Post by Ferdielance »

I'm glad we finally have a tutorial that gives appropriate weight to that critical first testimony. I sometimes suspect that authors get sloppy with the detective testimony because they're in a hurry to get to the juicier contradictions and plot twists. But these opening volleys must be treated with as much care as the late-game puzzles.
"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: Opening Statements and Detective Testimonies

Post by Enthalpy »

Keep in mind that this isn't quite finished. I received a request via PM to talk about how these adapt to cases with an investigation, and I'll be editing the guide to talk about that within the next few days.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: Opening Statements and Detective Testimonies

Post by Enthalpy »

...By which, I mean today. Edited!
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
henke37
Security expert / tools programmer
Posts: 3031
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:42 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: Swedish,English
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Opening Statements and Detective Testimonies

Post by henke37 »

Very good read. But I'd like to argue about the 5-1 example.

But before I can do that, I have to acknowledge that you correctly identified several key facts about the writing in that episode. In particular, you identified that there was a lot of facts about the previous trial that were left out.

You say that this causes the player to want to find out more about the previous trial. I agree, the writing makes it out to seem relevant. But it never comes up during this trial. Because in the end it turns out to not be important. Yet, I do not say that "turns out in the end" is a valid way to mitigate the fact that the player is wondering about things but doesn't get answers.

This brings us to the point I want to argue about.

You see a problem here. Instead, I turn the entire problem at its head. What if this result was what they wanted? What if they did it on purpose? I have to agree with your view that it is bad to do this by accident. But I think it was done on purpose here. It wants to tease the player with a mystery that they don't get to solve (in this episode).

So the situation should be analyzed from the viewpoint that it was done on purpose, not accidentally.
Currently working on a redesign of Court-records.net.
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: Opening Statements and Detective Testimonies

Post by Enthalpy »

Let's clarify the scope of what we're talking about. My understanding is that you are not "arguing about the 5-1 example" but about a minor detail in the 5-1 example. The only point specific to the old case that I bring up is how the bomb in the stuffed animal was evidence, which is minor. Being vague on that minor detail in 5-1 makes the case worse by adding more clutter, but that's secondary to the information about the facts and the prosecution's case that is not given clearly: it is unclear whether the court accepts Payne's motive for Juniper or not, it is unclear what the distinction between the timer mechanism and what the remote mechanism is, it is unclear how - according to the prosecution - the prosecution says Juniper rearmed the bomb in the defense lobby, it is unclear what the movements of the bomb were, ect.

Are you saying that being vague on those details was also done with intent to raise interest in the old case? If so, then the conversation will be much more complicated. If not, then unless I'm misunderstanding you, this is just a one-sentence clarification, not an analysis on a false premise.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
Post Reply