Spoilers main series because all the examples happen to be from there

This is not a post about how sometimes you have to find the killer to prove the defendant innocent. This is also not about evidence law in 1-5 and how it’s never brought up again, because those rules at least felt consistent within 1-5

These are to focus on a couple instances where the games contradict or hand wave their own internal logic

1) In 1-2, Phoenix is the defendant of the second trial day. What nobody ever mentions is that this is officially the moment where Edgeworth’s perfect record is broken. I’ve heard no justifications for this that are satisfying, and the game doesn’t address it either

Maya is released, which essentially means her acquittal. I doubt Edgeworth’s perfect record is rigidly defined as “cases where Edgeworth prosecuted, but the defendant has to be declared not guilty in the courtroom for him to lose and if it happens between trial days, it doesn’t count”. Some people even argue that Maya wasn’t acquitted, but that doesn’t make sense. You can’t arrest someone else for the crime without acquitting the original defendant

2) At the end of 2-4, Phoenix has the option between choosing guilty and not guilty. Each option is seen as acceptable because Engarde is either going to jail or getting killed by de Killer. But if he’s declared not guilty, then that means Adrian is going to trial. We literally spend the last 50% of the game focusing on that very point. So “guilty” is the obvious choice

And no, this moment is not treated as Phoenix knowing that Engarde will indict himself if he declares him not guilty

3) During 3-2, Atmey’s plan is revealed that he plans to take advantage of the court’s Double Jeopardy rule to get away with murder. But he’s never declared not guilty of Kane’s murder, he’s just getting declared guilty of a different crime

Yes, getting declared guilty of theft would give him the perfect alibi but it’s not Double Jeopardy. The only reason Double Jeopardy is actually brought up here is so the player knows what it is when Ron gets away with everything at the end of the case, but they give the player the wrong example in the case of Atmey

4) During 4-4, we have no decisive evidence against Kristoph. But that’s not to fear, because we have JURIES to decide verdicts now

Except we don’t. This is the only jury case in the entire series as far as we know, so all it accomplished was getting Vera acquitted. Kristoph should be in the clear unless there was ANOTHER separate jury trial that convicted him before the legal powers decided to not implement the system. This wasn’t really a problem in AJ since it ended at Vera’s trial, but DD creates this problem

5) Did you know 5-DLC has a pretty dark bad end? If you lose during Marlon’s testimony, Orla is EXECUTED

What about Double Jeopardy?? Orla was already acquitted so she should be safe. She has a right to a trial, but doesn’t get the same rights as humans otherwise? (Don’t care too much about this one since it’s just a bad end, but Orla deserves justice)