I went into this not being sure what sort of comedy to expect, since the screenshots only gave a small glimpse about what the humor would be like. For the most part, I think the intentional presentation errors work fine for the vibe you're going for. However, there are a few instances where I felt like it didn't really contribute to the joke. I think the most obvious example of this for me was the lack of timings on the interjection bubbles during the cross-examination, and also the co-council conversation being intentionally unhelpful. These instances felt off to me in a way that didn't fit, though I understand this is very subjective. The co-counsel in particular feels weird to me, since it's the one time that the player might need a useful hint (since the rest would simply be a matter of picking the other choice). Again, perhaps just me and my lack of Angry Birds knowledge, but I didn't really understand why one bird couldn't cause two explosions.
As a general note, I found the middleground of having very light penalties sort of awkward. The way the case is structured means that while I didn't really "get" the case logic (as intentionally silly as it is) I could still brute-force my way due to the small number of evidence you can present. I do feel like this is a case where you should either forego penalties entirely, or do something really special if the player actually bothers to empty out their truth bar. The game over sequence is the perfect opportunity for absurdity in a game like this.
Music choices generally worked well. I felt like the case ended a bit abruptly, but the sudden angsty(?) backstory was a good bit.
Best of luck in making future stuff. I hope this was a good experience for you and helped you learn the editor, looking forward to seeing what you come up with next. Thanks for make.
