Trial of the Century (Courtroom Drama Minecraft Machinima)

All rise! This Court is now in session. The Honorable Gomez presiding. Please be seated. So here’s the case. My name is Curt Enderman. I’m a defense attorney. My client, Joe Pigman, is an iron tycoon accused of destroying, or ‘griefing’ as we call it in law, the property of one Danny Gidlow.

The prosecutor is Jessica Blaze, a relative newcomer to the DA’s office who’s made a name for herself as a bit of a hotshot. Taking this high-profile case means she’s out for blood. With the cards stacked in her favor, I’d best avoid underestimation.

Judge Gomez is a man of integrity as any judge ought to be. However there’s some context to keep in mind. A Supreme Court seat opened up last week and a guilty verdict on a sensational case is exactly what he needs to get on the short list.

Not to mention he’s of iron golem heritage, and they’re farmed to fuel the iron industry in which my client made his fortune This bias is impossible to avoid as all judges in our culture descend from iron golems. Either way our, impartial arbiter is bound to err on the side of the prosecution

These juries tend to operate on mob mentality, so convincing them of anything isn’t much of a challenge. I just need to make sure I get the last, and best, word All things considered I’m not worried about winning. There is however one thing about this whole case that stinks…

I think my client is guilty as sin. Mr. Pigman. You have been charged on three counts, count one being destruction of property and count two being arson, both of which are considered major griefing in violation of article 2 section 5 of state Penal Code.

Count 3 is attempted murder in violation of article 1 section 1 of state Penal Code. How does the defendant plead? Not guilty. Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Calling the case of the people versus Joseph Pigman. Are both counsels ready to present ready to present? Ready for the people your honor.

All set for the defense your honor Very well. Will the clerk please swear in the jury. Afterwards the prosecution may address the jury for opening statements. [incoherent mumbling] [villager noises] Many of you may recognize Joe Pigman.

If not by his face then by his colossal reputation as the single wealthiest entrepreneur in the region. But today you’ll see a different side of the corporate juggernaut, one he’s careful to conceal from the public eye. Joe Pigman burnt down the house of a local farmer by the name of Danny Gidlow.

He did so with the intent to kill, as well as to claim the land for the benefit of his own company. The evidence and eyewitness testimony presented to you over the course of this trial will prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Mr. Pigman was the perpetrator and mastermind behind this malicious scheme.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Over the course of this trial you’ll hear the prosecution make many tall claims about the facts. But what you’ll find instead is speculation. There is no tangible evidence tying the crime to my client,

Only a trail of bread crumbs that have been used to jump to convenient conclusions. Now, Ms. Blaze has informed you that evidence is going to be presented. But I’m going to challenge you to go where the evidence leads. Dare I say, ladies and gentlemen, if you consider the evidence critically,

You’ll come to find that it does not implicate Joe Pigman. The people would like to call its first witness, Jed Ferris. Mr. Ferris, have you ever known Mr. Gidlow’s house to have an emergency like the fire suffered recently?

No ma’am. Not at all. And my family’s neighbored the Gidlow’s since I was a boy. That house doesn’t even have a fireplace far as I know. Hmm… Most interesting. Mr. Ferris, could you walk us through your account of the events on the 8th of May?

Well, I was on the road back home after a long day’s work. As I was riding, I noticed a strange fellow in dark clothing ride past me. I didn’t think much of it at the time, but later down the road I noticed something by the wayside. It looked to be flint and steel.

I picked it up thinking it must have been dropped by that fellow on the road and held onto it in case I ran into him again. I have to pass the Gidlow household before getting to my own. So when I arrived there later down the road, it all began to make sense…

Is this the flint and steel that you filed that night? Yes, it is. The jury will find that this flint and steel has been branded as a product of the Pigman Company, which is owned and operated by the defendant.

Your Honor, I would like to have this item marked as the People’s exhibit one and ask that they be admitted into evidence. OBJECTION! I’d like to request the defense calm himself. This isn’t Ace Attorney. [clears throat] Pardon me your Honor… Objection. Lack of foundation.

The witness was in possession of the item long before the police. It could be tampered. Overruled. You can make your case during cross-examination Mr. Enderman. I’ll allow that the flint and steel be admitted as evidence. Thank you, your Honor. I have no further questions. The defense may now cross-examine the witness.

Mr. Ferris, were there any identifying features about the suspicious person that passed you on the road? I’m not quite sure I understand — I’ll rephrase. Did they bear any logos or other visual traits that would suggest any affiliation with the Pigman Company? Well, no.

But the flint and steel I found by the wayside was branded as a Pigman Company product. Do you know for certain that the flint and steel belonged to the person in question? No, sir. I do not. So you’re telling me the only thing implicating my client

Is a product that anyone could walk down to the general store and buy, which may or may not have been used by someone who may or may not have been associated with him? Objection, your Honor, argumentative. Sustained. I’ll ask a different question. Mr. Ferris do you own an anvil in your home?

Yes, I do. According to your sworn statement in the police report you were in possession of the flint and steel two hours before the police arrived, is that correct? Yes. How long does it usually take to rebrand an item using an anvil? A few moments, I suppose.

Moments is not a unit of time, Mr. Ferris. Could you specify? Seconds. It takes a few seconds to rebrand an item on an anvil. No further questions, your Honor. Mr. Gidlow, would you please walk us through your account of the events on the 8th of May?

Well, for the most part it was a normal working day on the farm. I spent the morning tending to the chickens. Then late in the afternoon I received a visitation by some city-slicking business-looking folk. They introduced themselves as Joe Pigman and Andy Jarrett of the Pigman company,

And following some pleasantries they made me an offer for my land. Now you gotta understand: this land been in my family four generations. I wasn’t about to give it up. The gentlemen increased the sum of their offer as well as the veracity of their argument, but still I politely turned them down.

They seemed to skedaddle after my third decline, so after seeing them off I got back to my work. Shortly thereafter I took my pitcher to the well, looking to draw. But as night had then fallen, a strange light caught my eye.

Do you see one of the men that approached you that day here in this court? Yessum. Would you mind pointing them out for the jury? Let the record reflect that the witness has identified Joe Pigman at the defense table.

Mr. Gidlow, is it fair to say that Mr. Pigman grew more antagonistic as your conversation went on? Objection, your Honor. Leading the witness. Overruled, but consider reframing your approach, Ms. Blaze. I will, your Honor. Did Mr. Pigman’s tone or demeanor change after you declined him?

I wouldn’t say it changed so much as it stayed the same. From the start he was yelling and swearing and telling me how foolish I was for turning down such an offer. Good to know. I have no further questions, your Honor.

Mr. Gidlow, I’m very sorry to hear about the loss of your home. But might I ask: why do you associate this tragedy with Mr. Pigman? Like I said, he visited me earlier in the day and stormed off when I said no to his request. Do you have any reasons beyond that?

Well there’s no open flames in my house so it had to have been deliberate. Plus I don’t get visitors that often. It’s just putting two and two together. Mr. Gidlow, I’m afraid this jury holds a man’s life in their hands.

You’re asking them to put two and two together but they need proof beyond reasonable doubt. Do you have any proof that this man, who you hadn’t seen within hours of the crime is responsible? Well, uh, there was the flint and steel that my neighbor —

Which could have been used by anyone! Is there anything besides his visitation that causes you to suspect him? I, well… No. I have no further questions your Honor. Very well. We stand in recess until tomorrow morning.

That was some good stuff back there Mr. Enderman but I can’t help but feel we’re getting battered. I wouldn’t worry about it. As long as I keep on their inconsistencies, the win’s in a bag. I hope so for your sake Mr. Enderman.

Because if you don’t pull this one through I can make sure you never practice law again. We don’t have much in the way of witnesses for the defense. Mr. Pigman’s spersonal aide Andy Jarrett is good for confirming both his alibi and subpoenaed documents that absolve company employees.

Aside from that all we have are character witnesses from local charities supported by Mr. Pigman. Like I said, not much. But it doesn’t matter the jury has already made up their minds. Now I just need to seal the deal. We’ll now hear the prosecution’s closing statements.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we thank you for your patience over the many months of this trial. You now have an awesome responsibility in front of you. A man’s fate lies in your hands. But also the burden of justice… Mr. Gidlow’s house lies in ruin. His livelihood is completely destroyed.

Mr. Pigman had motive, intent, and absolutely zero competing suspects. The prosecution’s narrative is a classic example of the post-hoc fallacy. Mr. Pigman visited first, therefore he caused the crime that came after. They have no conclusive evidence that Mr. Pigman nor anyone in his company is responsible.

If the story they’re asking you to believe requires a lapse in logic to be true, then ask yourself: is that proof enough for a conviction? Will the jury foreperson please stand Has the jury arrived at a unanimous verdict? [villager noise] In the case of the people versus Joseph Pigman

In regards to the two counts of major griefing, the jury finds the defendant not guilty. In regards to the one count of attempted murder, the jury finds the defendant not guilty Order! Order in the court! The jury is thanked and excused. Court is adjourned.

Glad that nightmare is over. Now we can get back to business. Those pesky mill workers in the north are refusing to budge and we need their land. Take care of them will you? Why’d you call me out here Curt? And I’ve half a mind to walk if you say to gloat.

The northern textile mills. What about them? I think that’s the Pigman Company’s next target. They plan to move within the next couple of days. And just how do you know that? C’mon. I’ve been in their books and around their meetings for months working this case.

I’m certain… Just remember: you didn’t hear it from me. Why are you telling me this? Hey, I didn’t study law just to make a quick buck. I like justice too you know? No I mean… Why not report it yourself? The public already thinks you’re a hero for winning the trial of the century.

You kidding? Selling out clients is bad for business. I’d rather keep my career, thank you very much… He’s all yours, Ms. Blaze. Just make sure to catch him in the act.