Friday, 1 November
Court Room - Defendant Lobby No 2

You have been requested to come to the defence of one D. Yousee, whose resemblance to other people is purely coincidental. As far as you have been told, D. Yousee is suspected in the theft of a bomb. The bomb in question was being carried in a secure briefcase, which was stolen by your client, or so it is alleged.

Since you received the case last minute, however, you haven't really received much in the way of information on the case...

And the trial is set to start in ten minutes! Well!

Your client's here, at least, so if you want to cram some last minute information... well, now's the time.

"... You look nervous. Are you sure you are up to the task?"

"Me? Nervous? Well, let's just say I'm not the type thrilled over last minute cases. But don't get me wrong, it's a task I'm always up for. As I'm a part of your counsel with only minutes left, let's cut to the chase: did you or did you not steal the briefcase? Moreover, do you have knowledge on its whereabouts presently or anything in general on its owner?"

>>13411
"... Tch. I thought attorneys believed in their client's innocence? Of course, I did not steal the briefcase. If I knew where it was, we wouldn't be in this situation, now would we?

"As far as its owner goes... I have no idea. Like I keep telling everyone, I wasn't even part of the security detail. It's ridiculous."

"Of course, of course. The other response to that question wouldn't change a thing. The fact of the matter comes second in line behind proving your innocence, no? My beliefs and convictions completely rest upon that. Rather, I'm simply trying to grasp the situation and your involvement here.

You said a security detail? Perhaps taking one step back, could you briefly describe what led up to this point, or rather your false prosecution?"

>>13413
"I happened to be passing by the scene on pure coincidence. Mistaking me for someone who belonged, I was asked to keep watch over the room the briefcase seemed to have been kept in.

"Of course, when everyone returned, they discovered the missing case. Since the room was supposed to be empty when I was posted to guard there, they say only I could have stolen it, or helped someone steal it.

"Does that help, lawyer?"

>>13414
"Um, I don't mean to interrupt, but...If you don't mind me asking, why did you agree to guard the briefcase if it was nothing to do with you? Shouldn't you have just explained to them that they had the wrong person?"

Last edited at 13/10/31(Thu)12:37:28

>>13415
"What makes you think─"

Before your client can finish, however, you are interrupted by the crackle of a television turning on. An image of Lady Justice appears on the screen as a voice announces,

"It is time for the trial of D. Yousee. Please report to courtroom no. 2 post-haste!"

A bailiff approaches your group to take Yousee along to the courtroom. Of course, being good lawyers, you follow as well and move to the courtroom...

DAY 1
COURT IS NOW IN SESSION

"Upupupu! Welcome to my courtroom! Today is the case of the state versus Dew Yousee. The prosecution looks good and raring to go, but what about the defence? You guys aren't despairing over there, are you? Upupupu!"

>>13418
"Th-the defense is ready, Your Honor."

(......What on earth is that judge wearing?)

>>13419
"Upupupu! Is that so? Did I detect some despair in your voice? ... No matter. Prosecution, your opening statement, please! Upupupu... plunge this courtroom into despair..."

>>13420
"You've got it! Listen and weep, normals!"

>>13421
"Three days ago, there was a dangerous weapon transport happening right here, in this very city! A bomb that would serve as evidence in a murder case was to be transported here.

"The bomb was carried in a specially made briefcase and brought to the docks, where it would be given later to police bomb specialists. The defendant, Dew Yousee, posed as a security officer and tricked the two couriers who were waiting for the police there. As it was a top secret business, neither of the couriers knew the true contents of the briefcase, but Dew Yousee did.

"After tricking the two couriers into leaving, Dew Yousee entered the dock storeroom, then took out the briefcase and hid it. However, he didn't manage to leave the premises as the bomb specialists had arrived and, upon noticing the missing briefcase, quickly apprehended the suspect."

>>13422
"Naturally, we have decisive evidence that will prove beyond a doubt that the defendant is guilty of theft, and possibly of preparing terrorism."

Last edited at 13/11/01(Fri)19:17:23

>>13423
"... Sounds like you guys have your work cut out for you! No one'll blame you if you despair, of course... Does the defence have anything to say? Perhaps plead despair? Or shall we move on to the first witness?"

(You can now OBJECT! to statements. You may also respond to them or press for further information. There will be a witness explaining further details, however, but PW customarily has PW saying something after the opening statement or asking questions, so it'd be rude to deny you that. If you want to do nothing, you can just say so...)

>>13422
"Wait a second. You say that our client posed as a security officer? How was he able to fool the couriers? Shouldn't security have been handled more professionally, for such an important operation?"

>>13427
"It is as you say. That only furthers our case, however: How could the defendant have tricked them? The answer is easy. It was deliberate."

>>13428
"Then I assume that you have some kind of evidence demonstrating the means by which our client was able to fake his credentials?"

>>13429
"All in due time! For now, we'd like to call our first witness to the stand. And when I say witness, I mean the detective in charge of the investigation."

>>13430
"Upupupu! It'd be interesting to hear what went on... very well! Bailiff, please usher the witness in."

"Sir! Officer All Weysrite, reporting in! I am the detective in charge of the scene!

"I dislike wasting time, so I'll launch into my testimony immediately!"

"The dock warehouse is most interesting here! There's a peculiar something about it, but it's not related to the case."

"What IS related, however, is that there is only one exit! The door guarded by the defendant!"

"There can be no doubt that nothing could have passed the defendant unseen! Therefore, a thorough police investigation only shows one criminal!"

"Gyahahaha! That seems pretty solid testimony! Will the defence carry out cross-examination, or should we move on to a verdict of despair?"

>>13433
"How can you level off the relevancy of details on the crime scene in question when it's notable enough to mention? So what exactly is this peculiar "something" about the dock warehouse other than the single exit?"

Last edited at 13/11/05(Tue)23:04:23

>>13437
"It's unrelated, but no matter how we tried the lights in that warehouse would not turn on! We don't see how this could have had any effect on the crime, however."

>>13438
"Is there any possibility that the briefcase was removed from the warehouse before our client started guarding the door? After all, since the lights weren't working, making it difficult to see, the briefcase's disappearance could have been overlooked for some time."

>>13439
"How ridiculous! Of course, we investigated that possibility, but with the door open there was plenty of light to see the spot the briefcase was left in. So when the couriers left, they should've seen it still, and they certainly made a statement to that fact!"

>>13440
"Or, er, wait, I shouldn't testify as to that. Please scratch that off the record, whatever the couriers did and did not make a statement of shouldn't be coming from me!"

>>13434
"Although he was found and apprehended on premise, what allows you to assume the defendant guarded the door for the entire duration in the first place? Despite what they may testify, is it not impossible to infer negligence on part of the couriers leaving the warehouse unattended, thus opening a window for just about anyone to grab a lonely briefcase with no one around?"

Last edited at 13/11/06(Wed)15:20:15

>>13442
"Objection! The defence has no evidence to support their claim and are badgering the defendant for speculation.

"This is a court of justice, not one of fantasy theories! If we were theorising, might as well say an ESPer or alien did it! Maybe even a witch.

"Regardless, the prosecution moves to have the defendant not answer those questions."

>>13443
"Hmmm... what to do... I'm curious where the defence wants to take this. Defence, please rephrase the question so the witness doesn't need to speculate."

"Uh-I... but an expert opi--?... Alright, yes your honor:"
>>13435
"Throughout your thorough police investigation, did you gather evidence other than testimony that places the defendant on guard near the door from the time he was approached by the couriers up until his arrest?"

Last edited at 13/11/06(Wed)17:09:32

>>13445
"Er, well, that is... N, no, we don't... Not exactly..."

>>13446
"So you're essentially saying that the couriers' testimony is the only basis we have to believe that our client was guarding the door the whole time, correct?"

((Due to some pressing issues I'll be a bit later in posting, but I will make sure to advance by tomorrow evening. Sorry for the trouble!))

>>13447
"... That would be correct. There's no evidence to suggest he was actually standing guard the entire time. However!"

>>13449
"We have decisive evidence that shows the defendant willingly acted as guard there!

"Please have a look at this paper, with the defendant's signature, which proves his willingness!"

Added into evidence: Note bearing Yousee's signature. It's a statement saying the undersigned has arrived and will be guarding the location.

>>13450
"As an officer, are you aware of any credentials required on scene for someone to sign this documentation, or at least the procedure involved with the trade-off of a security detail? I mean, is this sort of paper usually just handed to a person that arrives at the expected time?"

Last edited at 13/11/15(Fri)21:54:13

>>13453
"Actually, it is unusual! However, because this case covered the transportation of bombs, it's understandable they wanted some sort of insurance that it wasn't their fault if something happened to it."

>>13454
"Let me rephrase... Despite it being unusual that a signed statement is required, would the defendant still need to provide any proof of certification as a security officer to the couriers during a trade-off under normal procedure?"

Last edited at 13/11/16(Sat)17:19:56