......I still don't see it as a "proof". It does make him suspicious, but...

Not to mention it was finding the swapped murder weapon and a missing card that finished the trial.

The trial continued because there was still the issue of Phoenix's fingerprints on the murder weapon, I think. Once it was proven that the bottles had been swapped, there wasn't any reason to suspect Phoenix anymore.

Sure, it's not 100% definite proof that Kristoph did it, but why else would he be in the room? And who else could have done it if it wasn't Kristoph? Plus I think the only way he could enter the room without being seen, is through the secret passage, which is where the killer came from.
Basically I don't see what lies Kristoph could come up with to justify his presence in the room.

It probably would have become worse for him once they did a little background search under further investigation and found out Kristoph actually was connected to Shadi Smith from a while ago.

"Whether he did it or not", was that ever of any question? He definitely did it; he admitted.

But wait, we were talking about the swapped card, weren't we? Well, the moment Kristoph stated the bloody ace was a fraudulent piece of evidence and Phoenix raised the question: "How do you know that?" has gave him away, because only the killer could have known about a blood-stained card. At the time of the killing, Phoenix was making a call on the first floor, while Olga was unconscious, so, they couldn't possibly know about it. This also gives away the fact that the bloody ace was forged (I know it's been confirmed after the verdict, but I'm just pointing it out anyway). But I wonder...

Probably not, the big question was "Should the system be so reliant on 'decisive' evidence?"
Despite the fact everybody in court knew it, there wasn't enough evidence to prove it on it's own.
That's why Phoenix had to make use of the forgery, even if it wasn't being used as decisive evidence, Kristoph's response to it was as good as an admission of guilt.

Common sense would have declared most of Wright's clients guilty from the start.

Actually, common sense would've gotten most of them acquitted pretty easily. Currently recording Case 2-1 for my Let's Play and I want to yell "Mistrial!" every five minutes, because none of the evidence presented actually works out. I think I have a longer list of its problems listed in a different thread.
Really, even for an introductory case, this was a bad one.

C-A

Actually, it's not the legal system that needs a change, the people just need to learn to use their brain and logic.

C-A

I just do not see what the fun is in a game where Chain of Custody, Conflict of Interest or simple "Lawyers do not have the job of investigating a crime scene" seem to be getting a dump taken on them. I can fully understand that AA games are made to appeal to the wider audience, as not every player will have studied anything about law - but even a simple amateur in terms of law would know a few things.

ie. You do not remove something from a crime scene.

C-A

Actually, I haven't played/re-played 4-1 in quite some time, but is it not so that Kristoph doesn't actually say that he killed Shadi? I mean, I think it was even mentioned in the first post, he doesn't really confess, it's just circumstantial words and "evidence" that gets him thrown into jail.

Also, I cannot say that the AA games, until AJ I guess, can really count as being "corrupt". It never really felt corrupt, it just felt like it made no sense. Nothing was really corrupt, except maybe for Gant - but then, that is one case that randomly throws real-life law pieces into it, making the game feel awkward with this random ass restriction suddenly put onto us that had no actualy existence in the cases preceeding or following it. (It's like contempt of court in 1-4, it's mentioned as an actual threat in that case, but never in any other)

C-A

Really? Gant's corruption sort of extends to Lana as well since she co-operated. Then we have Von Karma, killing a rival and forging evidence throughout his career to ensure victory. Same case we have Robert Hammond encouraging a false-plead of insanity to get his client off the hook. Von Karma steals evidence from an Evidence locker. Throughout the first game there's rumours of Edgeworth using the same methods. Redd White also hints at having numerous connections throughout the courts.

Then we get to JFA where we deal with a lawyer actually being blackmailed into getting a verdict and taking cases.

Then we move onto T&T where we have a prosecutor straight up murder someone.

It's another big mystery of GS5...the Dark Age of the Law has been around for AGES but apparently all that stuff before Phoenix's disbarment didn't mean a thing.

This is my theory regarding the Dark Age of the Law. I think it explains pretty nicely the whole deal with it, as well as the stuff about these previous incidents.