Main Story 05-42

Main Story 05-41

Main Story 05-42

Trial Stage

Main Story 05-43

Overview

• Stage Cost: AP x20
• First Clear Rewards: S-Chip x40

• Attribute: Logic
• Recommended Power: 50344

Guide

• Hover to view spoiler content.

Trial

Ian Johnson was suborned to commit perjury, and the proof is...

• Ian's Testimony I

The proof that Jasmine gave Ian a loan and not a bribe is...

• Photo of Ian's IOU

How do you prove that Ian's report is trusthworthy?

• Counter with Ian's illegal conducts

The evidence that proves Ian's real motive for stealing Opaline fish is...

• Ian's Testimony II

Losing the lawsuit harmed Jasmine, and the evidence is...

• Termination Contract

Summary

Prior to the trial, Luke and the main character go over documents Jasmine Kenders had given to Irvin Soong for safekeeping, including records of experimentation on Hugh Moss and enough information to guess that she'd connected Hugh's condition to that of the Opaline Fish, even if she wasn't familiar with the specific drug involved.

During the trial, the MC faces off against William Lewis of Baldr Legal Office, clearly showing the perjury and consequences of the previous trial and winning a public apology from Heirson.

Location(s)

Stellis Justice Department
Waiting Room

Stellis Justice Department

Stellis Justice Department

Stellis Justice Department

Stellis Justice Department

Stellis Justice Department

Character(s)

Luke Pearce

William Lewis

Judge

Evidence

Non-Tampered Water Quality Report

Evidence Description (Spoilers)

The report provided by Forestry Testing Labs that traced the source of the water contamination to the paper mill and Heirson.

---

Jasmine Kenders requested Forestry Testing Labs to provide a water quality report, which was signed by Ian Johnson. The report found that the paper mill was primarily responsible for the contamination of the Opaline River, but similar contaminants were also found in the waste discharged from the Heirson lab.

Debate Details

• Enemy Name: William Lewis
• Turn Limit: 25 turns

Wave 1

Empathy

"My agent never asked for payment from Jasmine Kenders. The defamation of reputation does not stand."

HP: 3650

ATK: 300

DEF: 15000

Intuition

"Ian has already admitted to taking bribes from Jasmine Kenders!"

HP: 3650

ATK: 300

DEF: 15000

Intuition

"Ian Johnson's academic misconduct and illegal sale of drugs make his report unreliable!"

HP: 3650

ATK: 300

DEF: 15000

Wave 2

Logic

"Your disregard for evidence and reckless argument make a mockery of the courtroom!"

HP: 10900

ATK: 300

DEF: 15000

Empathy

"Don't think I'm scared of you just because you beat Howard Syter!"

HP: 10900

ATK: 300

DEF: 15000

Empathy

"Baldr Legal Office is the best!"

HP: 10900

ATK: 300

DEF: 15000

Wave 3

Logic

"Baldr Legal Office will not lose to the same person twice!"

HP: 43550

ATK: 300

DEF: 15000

Player Counterarguments

These phrases are triggered when a player uses a card. The phrase depends on the attribute of the card selected.

You are the one ignoring evidence and disrespecting the court!

The loss of her job and reputation? You think these didn't have an impact on Jasmine Kenders?

Privately contacting and threatening Ian Johnson? Is this how Baldr operates?

Ian Johnson only said he was bribed after being threatened. It is not the truth!

The courtroom is a place where justice is upheld. It is not a place for your casual arguments!

Using underhand means to achieve victory, is this your conviction as a lawyer?

Everything you've said is purely based on your own subjective assumption. Please provide evidence!

If you want to compete, please do it fair and square!

Right and wrong is decided in a court of law based on evidence. It is not for you to decide!