Spoiler : One thing to note, first... :
Well, thank you for your... thoughts on the case. I'm going to assume you are neutral about it? You didn't say anything other than point out flaws. Even a rating of the case in a scale of 1 to 10 would help me see how un/enjoyable it is.
Spoiler : Responses in orange :
1. Why was the defendant called to the stand? I suppose the prosecutor wants the defendant to slip up and admit something which hurts her case. However, the prosecutor never gave a reason for the summoning to the court.
Obviously, Eugene didn't call her to the stand so she can "confirm the validity of his statements". Remember how Payne mentioned Sugar Daddies to ruin Larry's image of Cindy, which he shows just after. Eugene here shows that Monica can have a short temper, considering that just mentioning Montana being planned to arive was enough to irritate her.
Are we to assume that the judge is corrupt? Alright, then...
I honestly don't see your point here. The defendant is arguably a person connected to the case. Therefore, they can take the stand.
But why didn't the defense raise an objection? I can understand Mr. Phens not raising an objection, since he is a novice defense attorney, but are you seriously telling me that Turner Ment, a "really good attorney", wouldn't raise an objection?
I'll admit I was debating whether Isaac would speak his mind or just keep his thoughts to himself. Might have him raise an objection.
though this exact thing did happen in The First Turnabout... but at least in The First Turnabout, the player was given the choice to object.
See above
2. "She didn't solidify Miss Gontey's guilt" yes, she did. Her witness testimony strengthens the case against the defendant.
I believe my choices of words didn't help, then. Think back on the options: "Made Monica seem more guilty" and "Tried to keep herself innocent". She established a level of guilt for Monica at the first testimony. After that, she tried to show that despite her being involved, she is innocent in the end.
3. Why is the prosecutor and the judge asking Phens for evidence? Why would he need evidence for "how can we trust her previous testimonies now?"? That can't be "backed up" with evidence.
Maybe I can rephrase that scene. Have Eugene point out how Isaac was supposed to show such things in his CE's before Isaac inquires the testimonies.
4. What is the inconsistency between Monica's Story and Montana's first testimony? I don't see it.
Did Isaac say there's an inconsistency? The failure dialogue has that, but that's just that; a wrong deduction. He said that there's a problem; and it's a problem for the reason stated right after. It doesn't contradict anything.
5. The witness having the "opportunity" and motive to murder is enough to make the witness confess? That's absurd. The witness's confession is completely unwarranted. No criminal in ace attorney has ever confessed without there being evidence supporting the claim that they are the murderer. All Phens had against her was "opportunity" and motive. Sure, it's fine if that's enough for the defendant to be declared not guilty (though in the ace attorney universe, that never happens. The defense also proves who the real murderer is), but for that little to be able to make the murderer confess? That's unreasonable.
I'll admit that she gave in a little too easily. I see this as her realising she's been outsmarted and that there's no need to press further. Might revise it if I come up with something longer.
Obviously, Eugene didn't call her to the stand so she can "confirm the validity of his statements". Remember how Payne mentioned Sugar Daddies to ruin Larry's image of Cindy, which he shows just after. Eugene here shows that Monica can have a short temper, considering that just mentioning Montana being planned to arive was enough to irritate her.
Are we to assume that the judge is corrupt? Alright, then...
I honestly don't see your point here. The defendant is arguably a person connected to the case. Therefore, they can take the stand.
But why didn't the defense raise an objection? I can understand Mr. Phens not raising an objection, since he is a novice defense attorney, but are you seriously telling me that Turner Ment, a "really good attorney", wouldn't raise an objection?
I'll admit I was debating whether Isaac would speak his mind or just keep his thoughts to himself. Might have him raise an objection.
though this exact thing did happen in The First Turnabout... but at least in The First Turnabout, the player was given the choice to object.
See above
2. "She didn't solidify Miss Gontey's guilt" yes, she did. Her witness testimony strengthens the case against the defendant.
I believe my choices of words didn't help, then. Think back on the options: "Made Monica seem more guilty" and "Tried to keep herself innocent". She established a level of guilt for Monica at the first testimony. After that, she tried to show that despite her being involved, she is innocent in the end.
3. Why is the prosecutor and the judge asking Phens for evidence? Why would he need evidence for "how can we trust her previous testimonies now?"? That can't be "backed up" with evidence.
Maybe I can rephrase that scene. Have Eugene point out how Isaac was supposed to show such things in his CE's before Isaac inquires the testimonies.
4. What is the inconsistency between Monica's Story and Montana's first testimony? I don't see it.
Did Isaac say there's an inconsistency? The failure dialogue has that, but that's just that; a wrong deduction. He said that there's a problem; and it's a problem for the reason stated right after. It doesn't contradict anything.
5. The witness having the "opportunity" and motive to murder is enough to make the witness confess? That's absurd. The witness's confession is completely unwarranted. No criminal in ace attorney has ever confessed without there being evidence supporting the claim that they are the murderer. All Phens had against her was "opportunity" and motive. Sure, it's fine if that's enough for the defendant to be declared not guilty (though in the ace attorney universe, that never happens. The defense also proves who the real murderer is), but for that little to be able to make the murderer confess? That's unreasonable.
I'll admit that she gave in a little too easily. I see this as her realising she's been outsmarted and that there's no need to press further. Might revise it if I come up with something longer.