But this begs the question: What is a "Counter-Cross Examination"? It's basically exactly what you see happen whenever you press in the AA games: Which usually goes with you trying to ask a question, and the prosecution shutting you down. However, it'd be too easy in this format, so you need to throw in some legitimate questions in as well, and leave it to the player to decide if the question is relevant or not.
By the way, it's very easy to do. If you can use the "Answer a question" command, you can do a CCE. The basic frame flow of it is this:
Witness: Statement
DA/Prosecutor: Question
Answer a question: Object/Let it slide
Rinse/repeat until all statements are exhausted
But because I'm better at using visuals...
Which is where the "Proceed directly to another frame" action comes in. See how it's set to 209? That's the frame for the second statement of the first CCE in Renewals. Be sure you set the "proceed to another frame" command prompt at the end of BOTH dialogue paths so it skips to the next statement in the CCE, or you'll get stuck in a loop.
So, now that you know how to structure a CCE, let's talk about how you can add difficulty to it: Penalties are the obvious things, and should be handed out whenever your prosecutor or defense attorney either objects to a legitimate question or fails to object to an irrelevant one. If you want to add an extra bit of flavor to this part, you can hand out the penalties according to how severe the violation is. Example:
Statement: "I saw him shoot a hole in the guy and run away!"
Edgeworth: "How far away was the shooter, and the victim near a street light?"
Phoenix: "OBJECTION! That's completely irrelevant!"
Judge: "It's not, Mr. Wright. The shooter could have missed the victim if he was too far away or did not have the proper lighting. I'll have to assign a penalty."
*-20 life points, or so*
This is an example of a minor violation: Wright tried to shut down a legitimate question with the typical "THAT'S IRRELEVANT!" justification you see Payne throw out all the time. Nothing too absurd about the actual objection itself, so no need for severe penalties.
For a more severe violation:
Statement: "And then that witness lady just grabbed the bouncer by the throat and stabbed him with a pocket knife!"
Franziska: "Do you honestly expect us to believe that? There is a massive size difference between the witness and the victim! Furthermore, the victim was armed with a nightstick at the time!"
Phoenix: "OBJECTION! Size doesn't matter when you're wielding a knife around, Ms. von Karma! She could have easily killed him!"
Judge: "Mr. Wright...I find it next to impossible to believe that a scrawny woman like the witness would be able to kill a massive man such as the victim, who was armed with a nightstick with a pocket knife of all things! I'm afraid this warrants a large penalty."
*-40 life points, or so*
This is an example of a severe violation: The idea that a woman considerably smaller than a bouncer armed with a weapon would be able to murder him with something with as little range as a pocket knife is nothing short of absurd and is an easy deduction to make. Furthermore, Wright fails to give any supporting evidence to his point and, as such, gets a larger penalty for a larger violation.
TYPES OF OBJECTIONS (section and following image contributed by E.D.Revolution):
My input (defense side): it's a little bit more tricky to pull off a defense-side CCE due to the fact that the prosecution will be asking very relevant questions. Also, what the court knows =/= what you know. One must consider that when doing a defense-side CCE. Also, I find it more appropriate to gauge the life bar to the situation. Let's say a standard penalty is 20 points for a normal question. If the witness may get distressed (after all, your job as a defense attorney is to defend your client...) then the penalty might be 40 points. If a successful objection is raised, I'd raise the ante and put up 60 HP on the line for the next action. Just make sure your penalty applies only to the question, so establish the penalty risk either at the statement or just before the prosecutor asks the question. When the player selects the right choice for the situation, the life bar should stop flashing. If it's wrong, keep it flashing until the point where either the Judge penalizes you or your self-embarrassment gives you the penalty.
My advice for pulling off a successful defense-side CCE:
- You must keep in mind what you know vs. what the court knows.
- The risk must be established either at the statement or when the prosecutor calls .
- The risk must match the situation.
- Also, consider a successful by the prosecutor. How you should respond should be considered as well.
- You should also consider the line of questioning, ie, if the first question answered opens up new questions, risk applies to the next question. Just don't make the line of questioning too long.
Does any aspect of this guide need elaboration?