"Admissible evidence"
-
-
The parrot was in a sort of witness-protection program, but for animals.
tl;dr: No.
-
The parrot, an African Grey named Bud, was not used in the court proceedings.
Common sense prevailed in the end.
The prosecutor added that it was unlikely that the bird would be called to the stand to testify as a witness during the trial.
The evidence would be inadmissible anyway.
-
At this point, I'm compelled to point out that Phoenix Wright is fiction and the things that go on in it (such as calling a parrot as a witness) shouldn't be tried in a real court.
-
@powerlord said in "Admissible evidence":
At this point, I'm compelled to point out that Phoenix Wright is fiction and the things that go on in it (such as calling a parrot as a witness) shouldn't be tried in a real court.
yeah, and the legal system in the games is...... more than a little fucked up.
it's based on a weird mishmash of the western court systems and the traditional court system of japan, and the implications of the rules of the system are....... strange and terrifying.
-
@accalia said in "Admissible evidence":
the implications of the rules of the system are....... strange and terrifying.
How so?
(Not trollbaiting; I haven't played it and you saying this piques my curiosity.)
-
@powerlord said in "Admissible evidence":
At this point, I'm compelled to point out that Phoenix Wright is fiction and the things that go on in it (such as calling a parrot as a witness) shouldn't be tried in a real court.
At this point, I'm compelled to point out that episode took time in December 2016.
The game was made in 2001.
-
@masonwheeler said in "Admissible evidence":
@accalia said in "Admissible evidence":
the implications of the rules of the system are....... strange and terrifying.
How so?
(Not trollbaiting; I haven't played it and you saying this piques my curiosity.)
Game Theory: Phoenix Wright is a CRIMINAL (Ace Attorney) – 15:41
— The Game TheoristsThough the accuracy of that video in the context of the world of phoenix wright is debated, it's definitely enough to get you thinking because while the int3erpretations of the actions and implications are debated the actions themselves are not.
-
@accalia said in "Admissible evidence":
int3erpretations
You use a strange convention to name your variables
-
@timebandit said in "Admissible evidence":
@accalia said in "Admissible evidence":
int3erpretations
You use a strange convention to name your variables
5thank 7y0o8u.
-
-
@timebandit said in "Admissible evidence":
@accalia said in "Admissible evidence":
5thank 7y0o8u
I think your
nailsclaws needcuttingtrimmingFTFY
-
@accalia a video of last time
-
-
@raceprouk I am incredibly tempted to create an alt account named RespondsWithPonies and make like @r10pez10 but with pony images...though I wonder how quickly said account would get banned off the face of the forum.
-
-
@raceprouk It's worth it to go to youtube to see it.
She's cute when she's angry
-
@e4tmyl33t said in "Admissible evidence":
@raceprouk I am incredibly tempted to create an alt account named RespondsWithPonies and make like @r10pez10 but with pony images...though I wonder how quickly said account would get banned off the face of the forum.
ban? why would we ban it?
we havent banned @zoidberg.
-
@accalia said in "Admissible evidence":
@e4tmyl33t said in "Admissible evidence":
@raceprouk I am incredibly tempted to create an alt account named RespondsWithPonies and make like @r10pez10 but with pony images...though I wonder how quickly said account would get banned off the face of the forum.
ban? why would we ban it?
we havent banned @zoidberg.
...... why didn't he respond?
@Yamikuronue! HELP! ZOIDBERG RAN AWAY AGAIN!
-
@accalia said in "Admissible evidence":
@Yamikuronue! HELP! ZOIDBERG RAN AWAY AGAIN!
Look in the dumpster
-
@timebandit said in "Admissible evidence":
@accalia said in "Admissible evidence":
@Yamikuronue! HELP! ZOIDBERG RAN AWAY AGAIN!
Look in the dumpster
just so long as he isn't in the garage.
-
-
@e4tmyl33t said in "Admissible evidence":
@raceprouk I am incredibly tempted to create an alt account named RespondsWithPonies and make like @r10pez10 but with pony images...though I wonder how quickly said account would get banned off the face of the forum.
In this place? When did we last ban someone who wasn't a spammer?
-
@pleegwat said in "Admissible evidence":
@e4tmyl33t said in "Admissible evidence":
@raceprouk I am incredibly tempted to create an alt account named RespondsWithPonies and make like @r10pez10 but with pony images...though I wonder how quickly said account would get banned off the face of the forum.
In this place? When did we last ban someone who wasn't a spammer?
@RespondsWithPonies has already been binned.
-
@pleegwat said in "Admissible evidence":
In this place? When did we last ban someone who wasn't a spammer?
It's a long thread but I'm pretty sure you could figure out the date in there somewhere:
https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/17231/wtf-how-can-this-be-so-wrong-aka-the-discopocalypse-thread
-
@boomzilla said in "Admissible evidence":
@pleegwat said in "Admissible evidence":
In this place? When did we last ban someone who wasn't a spammer?
It's a long thread but I'm pretty sure you could figure out the date in there somewhere:
https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/17231/wtf-how-can-this-be-so-wrong-aka-the-discopocalypse-thread
Did we actually ban either of them or was it self-inflicted?
-
@boomzilla said in "Admissible evidence":
@pleegwat said in "Admissible evidence":
In this place? When did we last ban someone who wasn't a spammer?
It's a long thread but I'm pretty sure you could figure out the date in there somewhere:
https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/17231/wtf-how-can-this-be-so-wrong-aka-the-discopocalypse-thread
Does self-banning count though?
-
@ben_lubar said in "Admissible evidence":
Did we actually ban either of them or was it self-inflicted?
I think @end and @sam may have self banned, but there was also at least @eviltrout...who...SHIT...was not banned. That's fixed now.
Days since banning a non-spammer: 0
-
@masonwheeler Some things that come to mind:
- With the exception of a single case, all cases in the series are decided by a judge rather than a jury.
- Prosecutors are trusted almost completely.
- ...and just the opposite for Defense attorneys.
- All trials start within 24 hours of a person being arrested.
- All trials can be at most 72 hours.
- Discovery rules are... weird and inconsistent.
and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.
Make no mistake, the series can be pretty fun, but don't mistake it for a real court.
Side note: All 6 of the main games in the series except the fourth game can be downloaded from the 3DS eShop. The first 3 games are also on iOS (and possibly Android).
(There's also a crossover between Phoenix Wright and Professor Layton on 3DS)
Edit: Android has games 4 and 5. iOS has games 1-3, 4, and 5. 6 and the Professor Layton crossover are still 3DS exclusives.
Edit 2: 1-3 are on Android in Japan, no clue why they aren't in English.
-
@powerlord Isn't it also the case that you not only have to prove your defendant's innocence but also have to find the real culprit?
Someone has to pay for the crime, after all!
-
@powerlord said in "Admissible evidence":
@masonwheeler Some things that come to mind:
- With the exception of a single case, all cases in the series are decided by a judge rather than a jury.
- Prosecutors are trusted almost completely.
- ...and just the opposite for Defense attorneys.
- All trials start within 24 hours of a person being arrested.
- All trials can be at most 72 hours.
- Discovery rules are... weird and inconsistent.
The Japanese court system is very different from the US one. One of its feature is trials being decided by a judge rather than a jury. Another is alternating evidence gathering and courtroom proceedings. Note that my knowledge comes entirely from the video posted earlier.
Also, I'll bet on there being exaggerations to make the game more dramatic. It's not like procedurals accurately reflect the law, either.
-
@rhywden said in "Admissible evidence":
@powerlord Isn't it also the case that you not only have to prove your defendant's innocence but also have to find the real culprit?
Someone has to pay for the crime, after all!
Yes, that's true too.
-
@rhywden said in "Admissible evidence":
have to find the real culprit?
That's plausibly more a function of taking the weird, impossible cases the protagonist takes. You have to find a reasonable alternative story, and everyone's dead sure your guy, the obvious suspect, did it. By the time you have enough evidence for reasonable doubt, you also have another killer to name.
-
@khudzlin said in "Admissible evidence":
The Japanese court system is very different from the US one. One of its feature is trials being decided by a judge rather than a jury.
Trials being decided by a judge instead of a jury exist in the US too.
-
@raceprouk said in "Admissible evidence":
@khudzlin said in "Admissible evidence":
The Japanese court system is very different from the US one. One of its feature is trials being decided by a judge rather than a jury.
Trials being decided by a judge instead of a jury exist in the US too.
in fact, cases decided by a jury are the clear minority of criminal cases in the US
i don't have the statistics in front of me but IIRC it's something like: 80% plea batgain, 15% trial by judge (defendant did not request a jury even after being told they could), 5% jury trial.
...... something along thouse rough lines anyway.
-
@accalia said in "Admissible evidence":
15% trial by judge
I knew most defendants plead out, but I've never seen this statistic. In any case, even judges are lamenting the lack of jury trials (or trials at all).
-
@boomzilla said in "Admissible evidence":
That's fixed now.
bonus points if node emails him to let him know he's banned so he remembers this forum exists to be banned from...
-
@mzh said in "Admissible evidence":
I knew most defendants plead out, but I've never seen this statistic.
i make no claims to it's accuracy down to the number, i just know the info graphic i saw a year or so ago had numbers that were roughly like that.
-
@mzh said in "Admissible evidence":
In any case, even judges are lamenting the lack of jury trials (or trials at all).
It's a red flag to be sure, but there's a big difference to someone actually admitting guilt and an actually innocent person getting railroaded into a plea.
Judge Gleeson wrote that because most pleas are negotiated before a prosecutor prepares a case for trial, the “thin presentation” of evidence needed for indictment “is hardly ever subjected to closer scrutiny by prosecutors, defense counsel, judges or juries.”
This says to me that either defense counsel is falling down on the job or the accused knows he's guilty and is therefore probably going to be convicted.
-
@boomzilla said in "Admissible evidence":
This says to me that either defense counsel is falling down on the job or the accused knows he's guilty and is therefore probably going to be convicted.
The latter is surely the case most of the time, but the former is a huge problem. Here's Louisiana for a particularly bad example--to the point where the public defenders are practically on strike. Defenders are necessary so that prosecutors can't lazily threaten 20-year sentences to get pleas for 2 years.
-
@mzh said in "Admissible evidence":
The latter is surely the case most of the time, but the former is a huge problem. Here's Louisiana for a particularly bad example--to the point where the public defenders are practically on strike. Defenders are necessary so that prosecutors can't lazily threaten 20-year sentences to get pleas for 2 years.
Yeah, I'd classify that as an example of defense counsel falling down on the job. Obviously, supplying sufficient public defenders is more of a systematic failure than an individual counsel's failure.
-
@accalia said in "Admissible evidence":
@raceprouk said in "Admissible evidence":
@khudzlin said in "Admissible evidence":
The Japanese court system is very different from the US one. One of its feature is trials being decided by a judge rather than a jury.
Trials being decided by a judge instead of a jury exist in the US too.
in fact, cases decided by a jury are the clear minority of criminal cases in the US
i don't have the statistics in front of me but IIRC it's something like: 80% plea batgain, 15% trial by judge (defendant did not request a jury even after being told they could), 5% jury trial.
...... something along thouse rough lines anyway.
The problem with jury trials is that a group of people with no experience in legal matters are usually easier to fool and/or sway with emotional appeals than a single judge is. Obviously, this benefits the side that is "correct", so a person who committed a crime would be more likely to be found innocent, while a person who didn't commit the crime would be more likely to be found guilty.
-
@dragnslcr It's meant to be a jury of your peers, but often that means the jury is just 12 random idiots. If a jury really was made of your peers, then jury trials would be a bit fairer.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in "Admissible evidence":
@raceprouk I am incredibly tempted to create an alt account named RespondsWithPonies and make like @r10pez10 but with pony images...though I wonder how quickly said account would get banned off the face of the forum.
Probably never... but I'd downvote them. So there's that.
-
@dragnslcr said in "Admissible evidence":
The problem with jury trials is that a group of people with no experience in legal matters are usually easier to fool and/or sway with emotional appeals than a single judge is. Obviously, this benefits the side that is "correct", so a person who committed a crime would be more likely to be found innocent, while a person who didn't commit the crime would be more likely to be found guilty.
I don't see how any of that is obvious. I'd expect it to vary a lot with circumstances and the skill of the litigator.
-
@raceprouk said in "Admissible evidence":
@dragnslcr It's meant to be a jury of your peers, but often that means the jury is just 12 random idiots. If a jury really was made of your peers, then jury trials would be a bit fairer.
"Jury of your peers" doesn't mean it only contains people like you... in fact it means the opposite.
jury of one's peers
n. a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans.
-
@raceprouk said in "Admissible evidence":
jury of your peers
-
@anotherusername Yes, I'm perfectly aware of that 'jury of your peers' means. My issue is that the definition of 'peer' used can be too broad, resulting in e.g. a complex financial fraud case having a jury full of people who can barely add two numbers together.
-
@anotherusername said in "Admissible evidence":
Jury of your peers
peer
noun
plural noun: peers- a member of the nobility in Britain or Ireland, comprising the ranks of duke, marquess, earl, viscount, and baron.
obviously this was the intended meaning.
-
@raceprouk said in "Admissible evidence":
resulting in e.g. a complex financial fraud case having a jury full of people who can barely add two numbers together.
if the jury had to be hip to the knowledges of the defendant, then could a physicist murder someone via quantum mechanics and get off because it's impossible to find 12 people that truly understand how the murder happened?