|This article or section may require a cleanup.|
|This article or the section of it requires a cleanup. As such, you can help with the cleanup, by adding beneficial information to this article or the section. Remember, you are required to follow the manual of style. You are welcome to discuss this issue in the talk page of the article.|
Witch trials only occur in Labyrinthia's equivalent of a courtroom—the Witches' court—during Professor Layton vs. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, and are the equivalent of the trial segments of the main Ace Attorney series. The procedures are mostly the same, as the defense's main method of attack being the cross-examination of witnesses. This involves the usual pressing of witness statements to gain new information or testimony, as well as presenting evidence which contradicts witness testimony during cross-examination. The defendants (in Labyrinthian terminology, the "Accused") of witch trials are accused of being witches, and as per Labyrinthian law, must be burned in a pit of fire. The Defender (equivalent of a defense attorney in the real world) must face off against an Inquisitor (equivalent of a prosecutor in the real world) to protect his client.
Differences from Trial segments Edit
The main things which make witch trials different from the trial segments seen in the main series of Ace Attorney games are that the cross-examination process now features multiple witnesses taking the stand at once, with each witness making one statement in their collective testimony. Spectators may also join the witnesses on the stand to provide their own testimony. The first witness who does this being Emeer Punchenbaug during The Fire Witch. Wright can only press one statement at a given time, but the witnesses who are not currently being pressed can react to what the other witnesses are saying. Wright can use the touch screen to view the other witnesses' behavior, and have them offer their input if the current speaker's testimony contradicts what they themselves have seen, or sometimes just to make comments on the current testimony. As a result of this, Wright can also (when allowed by the game; generally when there is no evidence left to present) present testimony instead of evidence in order to expose contradictions. A minor, non-gameplay change is that Wright can now have multiple people on his defense team acting as co-counsels at once, meaning that Wright can get additional opinions when he is stuck, rather than the opinion of just one person.
- Main article: Hang on!
During the cross-examination phase of a witch trial, Wright can press one witness statement at a time. However, as the pressed witness is talking, the other witnesses on the stand listen, and react to what the currently speaking witness will say with a startled noise and make an expression which indicates that they are lost in thought. The player can use the touch screen to focus Wright's attention to one of the non-speaking witnesses, and if they are behaving suspiciously, he can call them out on it and have them offer their input on the pressed witness's testimony. This can uncover contradictions, provide extra information or simply lead to humorous dialogue.
Gameplay elements from the main series Edit
- For elements of gameplay which are the same in both witch trials and regular trials, please look at the Trial article.
The only differences between witch trials and regular trials are the interjections used by the characters. Wright will use "Got it!" instead of "Take that!" when pointing out specific details of evidence, and Layton will use "Have a look!" in the same place as Wright would normally use "Take that!" (he uses "Eureka!" in the Japanese version - an interjection unique to Miles and Gregory Edgeworth in the Investigations spin-off series).
- Trials in Dai Gyakuten Saiban: Naruhodō Ryūnosuke no Bōken, are similar to witch trials in that they have multiple witnesses being cross-examined at once, the testimony can me interrupted with Hang on!, and Got it! is sometimes used instead of Take that! when pointing out specific details in evidence.