Transcript of Mugger v. Roger Murray

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Headless arrow 5 detail.png
This transcript or section is incomplete and could do with improvement.
Reason: Missing defender's summary, jury reaction on defender's and prosecutor's case, jury reaction while evidence presenting and cross-examination on both side, talking to prosecutor and defender texts; player's summary needed to check for enough/not enough correct choice text
You can discuss this issue on the talk page or edit this page to improve it.
This transcript involves dialogue with Clerk, Judge, Prosecutor, Defender, The Jury, Arresting officer, Roger Murray, and the player.

Court documents[edit | edit source]

Court summons[edit | edit source]

The following text is transcluded from Transcript:Court summons (Mugger v. Roger Murray).

Court summons

You have been summoned to the Seers' Village courthouse to work on the case of Mugger (level: 6) vs Roger Murray. Please present yourself to the court clerk at your earliest convenience.

Circumstances and evidence[edit | edit source]

The following text is transcluded from Transcript:Case report 2 (Mugger v. Roger Murray).

Circumstances and Evidence

Suspect: Mugger (level: 6)
Case Background: The alleged mugger was arrested by local authorities in Edgeville after a man claimed he'd been beaten and mugged. The victim, Roger Murray, assisted the local authorities in locating his attacker and identified him as the assailant.
On arrest, the following were found on the alleged mugger's person:
1 face mask
1 nightstick
1 fingerprint, extracted from the nightstick

There is no need to interview witnesses in preparation for this case.

Character background[edit | edit source]

The following text is transcluded from Transcript:Case report 3 (Mugger v. Roger Murray).

Background

Suspect: Mugger (level: 6)
Background: Little is known about the alleged mugger. He has been sighted in various large cities before the attack, but no records of previous aggression exist.

Victim: Roger Murray Background: Murray is known around Edgeville for being a poor gambler. He tends to make unwise bets on long odds and will, more often than not, lose. The victim claims that he had won money before being attacked by the suspect.

There is no need to interview witnesses in preparation for this case.

Pre-trial[edit | edit source]

Starting the case[edit | edit source]

Talking to the Clerk about the Court summons[edit | edit source]

Searching the File cabinet[edit | edit source]

Enter the court room[edit | edit source]

Trial[edit | edit source]

Commencement[edit | edit source]

Opening statement[edit | edit source]

If prosecuting:

  • Player: Members of the Jury, I am going to present evidence that decisively proves that this alleged Mugger (level: 6) not only attacked an innocent traveller, but did it with the intention of robbing the victim.
  • (Same as 'Your Honour, I'd like to present evidence.' below.)

If defending:

Talking to the judge[edit | edit source]

  • Judge: What can I do for you?
    • Your Honour, could you explain what I need to do?
    • Your Honour, I'd like to present evidence.
    • Your Honour, I'd like to call a witness.
      • Player: Your Honour, I would like to call a witness.
        • Victim
        • Arresting officer.
        • No one at this time. I would like to return to evidence.
        • No one at this time. I would like to finish and summarise my case.
          • Player: No one at this time, Your Honour. I would like to finish my presentation by summarising my case to the Jury.
          • (Proceed to 'Summary' below.)
    • Your Honour, I'd like to summarise my case.
      • Player: Your Honour, I would like to finish by summarising my case to the Jury.

Presenting evidence[edit | edit source]

Fingerprint[edit | edit source]

If prosecuting:

  • Player: Ladies and gentlemen, if I could draw your attention to Prosecution Evidence #1; a fingerprint found on the nightstick.
  • Player: You can see that the fingerprint found on the nightstick is clearly the Defendant's
  • The Jury reacts to the argument.
  • The jury agrees with your argument.
  • Judge: Well done, [Player]. The Jury seem to agree with your evidence. Please continue with your case.

If defending:

  • Player: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the Prosecution has led us to assume that a fingerprint on a nightstick assumes guilt. I'd like to point out...[sic]...that it would be entirely unusual if his fingerprint WASN'T there; the nightstick was taken from him on arrest! That neither proves nor disproves that he used the nightstick against the 'alleged' victim. It simply proves what we already knew: that the Defendant was carrying it at the time of the arrest.
  • The Jury reacts to the argument.
  • (Jury reaction transcript missing. edit)
  • Judge: Well done, [Player]. The Jury seem to agree with your evidence. Please continue with your case.

Nightstick[edit | edit source]

If prosecuting:

  • Player: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, if I could draw your attention to Prosecution Evidence #2: A nightstick.
  • The Prosecution presents the nightstick as evidence.
    • This nightstick was found on the accused.
      • Player: The nightstick was found on the accused at the time of the arrest. What possible motive could an innocent person have for carrying such a brutal weapon. Clearly an innocent person would have no need for it.
      • If the Jury didn't disagree with the player's argument about the nightstick before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury agrees with your argument.
      • Judge: A very persuasive argument, [Player]. Keep this up and the Jury will certainly decide in your favour.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)
    • The accused claims it isn't his.
      • Player: The accused claims that the nightstick isn't his. Look at his face: it's the face of a cold, hard, skill-cape wearing liar.
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • The jury doesn't know what to think about your argument.
      • Judge: What point are you trying to make? You're boring the Jury to tears! Try presenting the evidence in a sensible manner.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)
    • What's black and sticky.
      • Player: What's black and sticky? A nightstick! Haha! Um, it doesn't look all that harmful, really. Maybe it was a cane that got cut in half?
      • If the Jury didn't agree with the player's argument about the nightstick before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The Prosecution lawyer isn't very skilled.
      • Judge: You couldn't think of anything better to say? The Jury is not going to side with you on this, I'm afraid.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)

If defending:

  • Player: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, if I could draw your attention to Prosecution Evidence #2: a nightstick.
    • This nightstick was found on my client.
      • Player: The nightstick was certainly found on my client, but it's no crime to be armed! The Defendant was travelling through Edgeville, on the borders of the Wilderness: it would have been foolish to do so without protection.
      • If the Jury didn't disagree with the player's argument about the nightstick before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury agrees with your argument.
      • Judge: A very persuasive argument, [Player]. Keep this up and the Jury will certainly decide in your favour.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)
    • My client is adamant it's not his stick.
      • Player: My client swears that this nightstick doesn't belong to him. He picked it up off the street just before the local authorities unjustly arrested him.
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • The jury doesn't know what to think about your argument.
      • Judge: If the Jury are as bored as I am, you're not going to win this case. Try presenting that evidence again, but in a different manner.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)
    • What's black and sticky.
      • Player: What's black and sticky? A nightstick! Haha! Um, it doesn't look all that harmful, really. Maybe it was a cane that got cut in half?
      • If the Jury didn't agree with the player's argument about the nightstick before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury disagrees with your argument.
      • Judge: Oh dear, I don't think the Jury understand you at all. Perhaps you shouldn't present such silly arguments.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)

Face mask[edit | edit source]

If prosecuting:

  • Player: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. If I could draw your attention to Prosecution Evidence #3: a face mask
  • The Prosecution presents a mask as evidence.
    • The accused seems to wear a face mask all the time
      • Player: The accused seems to wear a face mask all the time. He's clearly ashamed to show his face in public.
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • The jury doesn't know what to think about your argument.
      • Judge: What point are you trying to make? You're boring the Jury to tears. Try presenting the evidence in a different manner.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)
    • It's a black face mask, often worn by robbers.
      • Player: It's a black face mask, often worn during robberies
      • If the Jury didn't agree with the player's argument about the face mask before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury disagrees with your argument.
      • Judge: You expect us to believe that? The Jury is not going to side with you on this, I'm afraid.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)
    • The accused was wearing this mask when he was arrested
      • Player: The accused was wearing this mask when he was arrested. The only reason for him to wear such a mask is to hide his identity. Innocent people do not need to hide their identity.
      • If the Jury didn't disagree with the player's argument about the face mask before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury agrees with your argument.
      • Judge: A very well-made point. I think the Jury agrees with you heartily.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)

If defending:

  • Player: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, if I could draw your attention to Prosecution Evidence #3: a face mask.
    • My client always wears a mask.
      • Player: My client always wears a face mask. He's a very private person and would rather not reveal his secret identity.
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • The jury doesn't know what to think about your argument.
      • Judge: What point are you trying to make? You're boring the Jury to tears. Try presenting the evidence in a different manner.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)
    • It's a black face mask. It's in fashion right now
      • Player: It's a black face mask. They're in fashion right now, apparently. Even my mum wears one.
      • If the Jury didn't agree with the player's argument about the face mask before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury disagrees with your argument.
      • Judge: You expect us to believe that? The Jury is not going to side with you on this, I'm afraid.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)
    • It isn't a crime to wear a mask.
      • Player: It is not a crime to cover one's face. My client wears a mask, not to hide his identity, but to cover a tragic, disfiguring scar.
      • Player: He may be sensitive and self-conscious, but that's no reason to suspect him of a brutal attack!
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • (Jury reaction transcript missing. edit)
      • Judge: A very persuasive argument, [Player]. Keep this up and the Jury will certainly decide in your favour in no time.
      • (Proceed to 'What evidence do you want to present?' above.)

Cross-examination[edit | edit source]

Victim[edit | edit source]

If prosecuting:

  • Ask about:
    • The attack
      • Player: Mr. Murray, I'd like to talk to you about the alleged attack.
      • Roger Murray:No problem, guv'nor. I'd just won a pocketful of cash from betting on some ferret racing. As I was counting it, walking down a street in Edgeville, a guy in a mask beat me and took all my cash.
      • Player: So, you reported this terrible attack to the local authorities and identified this man as the attacker?
      • Roger Murray: I sure did. There was no mistaking him.
      • Player: Had you provoked the attacker in any way?
      • Roger Murray: Only by holding the cash in my hands, in plain light. That was enough for the Defendant to jump me, it seems. I didn't even get to have a victory beer.
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • The jury doesn't know what to think about your argument.
    • The nightstick
      • Player: Mr. Murray, I'd like to talk to you about the nightstick. Can you positively identify this as the weapon used by the Defendant to attack you?
      • Roger Murray: Yes, yes I can. It even matches one of my bruises; the arresting officer checked.
      • If the Jury didn't disagree with the player's argument about the victim before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury agrees with your argument.
      • (Shows the previous options.)
    • The facemask
      • Player: Mr. Murray, I'd like to talk to you about the face mask worn by the defendant. You can positively say that the man in this court is the one that attacked you?
      • Roger Murray: Yes, I can. I mean, the mask makes it hard to say for 100% but I'm definitely 80% sure it's him. Yeah, completely, 80% sure.
      • Player: Er, you mean you have never seen his face?
      • Roger Murray: Well, no, not entirely. But black masks aren't all THAT common. So, I'm definitely, positively, 80% sure it's him.
      • If the Jury didn't agree with the player's argument about the victim before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury disagrees with your argument.
      • (Shows the previous options.)
    • That's all, for now.
      • Player: That's all for now, thank you.
      • (Dialogue ends.)

If defending:

  • Ask about:
    • The attack.
      • Player: Mr. Murray, I'd like to talk to you about the alleged attack.
      • Roger Murray: Uh, sure. I'd just won a chunk of money from a bet I'd made, and was headed to the bank to deposit my winnings. Just then, this mugger followed me and jumped me! He beat me close to death with that stick.
      • Player: So, when he attacked you, he took your money?
      • Roger Murray: Yeah, he did. Was the first time I'd won a bet in months, and all my money was gone.
      • Player: Then why was no money found on the defendant when arrested? Or on you, for that matter? Where did the money go?
      • Roger Murray: Err, um, I don't-.
      • Player: Could it be that, like every other time you have placed a bet, you lost all your money? Then, seeing that my client wore a mask, you formed a plan to get a little compensation?
      • Roger Murray: No! No. The money...must have been misplaced. Wouldn't be surprised if the officers kept it for themselves...
      • Player: That is very doubtful, Mr. Murray.
      • If the Jury didn't disagree with the player's argument about the victim before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury agrees with your argument.
      • (Shows the previous options.)
    • The nightstick.
      • Player: Mr. Murray, I'd like to talk to you about the nightstick. How sure are you that this nightstick was the one used in the attack? There must be hundreds in Edgeville.
      • Roger Murray: The stick matches the bruises on my neck and back perfectly. I wasn't comfortable with the idea, but the arresting officer checked 'em and agrees with me.
      • Player: But that would be hard to prove, surely? A bruise could be caused by any number of things.
      • Roger Murray: The bruises are pretty distinctive. I should know: I've been beaten up outside gambling dens most my life.
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • (Jury reaction transcript missing. edit)
      • (Shows the previous options.)
    • The face mask.
      • Player: Mr. Murray, I'd like to talk to you about the face mask worn by the defendant. You can positively say that the man in this court is the one that attacked you?
      • Roger Murray: Yes, I can positively say it is that man.
      • Player: Even though he's wearing a mask?
      • Roger Murray: There aren't many masked men carrying nightsticks in Edgeville. That man matches the description of the man that attacked me. He's the only one in Edgeville that matched that description.
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • (Jury reaction transcript missing. edit)
      • (Shows the previous options.)
    • That's all, for now.
      • Player: That's all for now, thank you.
      • (Dialogue ends.)

Arresting Officer[edit | edit source]

If prosecuting:

  • Ask about:
    • The attack.
      • Player: Could you tell me about the attack?
      • Arresting Officer: The victim, Roger Murray, reported to us that he'd been attacked. He was in a dishevelled state and had strange bruises on his neck and back. He led us back to the site of the attack, where we completed a sweep or the area and
      • Arresting Officer: found the Defendant nearby. The victim identified him as the mugger and we arrested him there and then
      • Player: So, you found a weapon on the Defendant, and he was wearing a face mask?
      • Arresting Officer: The weapon weren't exactly an unexpected find. Our village is near the Wilderness, do most people are armed. The face mask was unusual, and made identification tricky.
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • The jury doesn't know what to think about your argument.
      • (Shows the previous options.)
    • The nightstick.
      • Player: So, you found a weapon on the Defendant?
      • Arresting Officer: Yep, the Defendant had a nightstick on 'im. We confiscated it during the arrest and later tested it for fingerprints.
      • Player: Can you confirm that the fingerprint is indeed the Defendant's?
      • Arresting Officer: Yep, the fingerprint is definitely the mugger's. We also checked the stick against the bruises on the victim, and it's a match.
      • If the Jury didn't disagree with the player's argument about the arresting officer before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury agrees with your argument.
      • (Shows the previous options.)
    • The victim.
      • Player: What can you tell me about the victim?
      • Arresting Officer: Oh, Mr.Murray is well known to us in the force. He's a notorious gambler in Edgeville, known for betting on long odds and losing.
      • Player: But in this case, you believe he was the victim of an attack?
      • Arresting Officer: It's not my place to believe one way or the other- that's the Jury's. I can tell you that Mr. Murray claimed to have money stolen off of him., but we couldn't find it anywhere on the Defendant or the victim. Mr.Murray isn't known for being an upstanding citizen.
      • If the Jury didn't agree with the player's argument about the arresting officer before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury disagrees with your argument.
      • (Shows the previous options.)
    • That's all, for now.
      • Player: That's all, for now. Thank you.
      • (Dialogue ends.)

If defending:

  • Ask about:
    • The attack.
      • Player: Could you tell me about the attack?
      • Arresting Officer: Roger Murray reported to us that he'd been mugged outside of the ferret racing track. He was in a dishevelled state and had some strange bruises along his back and neck. He led us back to the site of the attack, where we
      • Arresting Officer: completed a sweep of the area and found the Defendant nearby. The victim gave an indication that the mugger might have been the assailant, so we arrested him.
      • Player: Had there been reports of other muggings in the area?
      • Arresting Officer: Yep, now you mention it, there had been. Nothing official, but rumours and pub talk of people getting mugged on their way home.
      • Player: Have there been any muggings since my client was taken into custody?
      • Arresting Officer: Nah, not one.
      • If the Jury didn't agree with the player's argument about the arresting officer before:
        • The Jury reacts to the argument.
        • The jury disagrees with your argument.
      • (Shows the previous options.)
    • The nightstick.
      • Player: So, you found a weapon on the Defendant?
      • Arresting Officer: Yep, the Defendant had a nightstick on 'im. We confiscated it during the arrest and later tested it for fingerprints.
      • Player: It's not very surprising that the fingerprints were his, since he was carrying it when you arrested him.
      • Arresting Officer: Just following procedure, ma'am.
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • The jury doesn't know what to think about your argument.
      • (Shows the previous options.)
    • The victim.
      • Player: What can you tell me about the victim?
      • Arresting Officer: Mr. Murray is a running joke among the Edgeville constabulary. We call him Roger Dodger, as he runs to us whenever he wants to 'dodge' a beating from loan sharks.
      • Player: So, the victim and only witness to this 'crime' isn't the most trustworthy of people?
      • Arresting Officer: You could say that. In my past dealings with him, he's not been all that truthful, and he's always in trouble.
      • The Jury reacts to the argument.
      • (Jury reaction transcript missing. edit)
      • (Shows the previous options.)
    • That's all, for now.
      • Player: That's all, for now. Thank you.
      • (Dialogue ends.)

Talking to the prosecutor[edit | edit source]

Only if defending:

  • (Talking to prosecutor transcript missing. edit)

Talking to the defender[edit | edit source]

Only if prosecuting:

  • (Talking to defender transcript missing. edit)

All evidence presented[edit | edit source]

If the player has received one positive or negative jury response for each piece of evidence:

All evidence presented and witnesses interviewed[edit | edit source]

If the player has received one positive or negative jury response for each piece of evidence and each witness:

  • Judge: I think that is enough. It's time for you to summarise your case to the Jury.
  • (Proceed to 'Summary' below.)

Summary[edit | edit source]

  • Which member of the Jury would you like to try to appeal to?
  • Opens Jury selection interface
  • If prosecuting:
    • Player: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I have presented evidence that conclusively proves the Defendant is attacked the victim in an attempt to steal his winnings. This time, his victim came away with bruises. What if, next time, it's an elderly gentleman who can't get away so easily? Or a youth, playing in the street? For the safety of innocent citizens, this man must be put away!
    • Judge: Very well. Now, the Defence may present their case.
    • (Same as 'The defence's case' below.)
  • If defending:
    • Player: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I have presented evidence that conclusively proves the Defendant is innocent with regards to these crimes. Who are we to judge someone on how they dress? It is not a crime to wear strange head gear - just look at the judge! We must not give in to the stereotype that muggers and brigands wear this kind of clothing. My client is an innocent man carrying a weapon, not to attack others, but to defend himself.
    • Judge: I believe we've heard enough.
  • (Same as Transcript:Court Cases § Pronouncing verdict.)

The prosecution's case[edit | edit source]

Only if defending:

  • Prosecutor: Members of the Jury, I am going to present evidence that decisively proves this alleged Mugger (level: 6) attacked Roger Murray in Edgeville. First, I present the face mask. The suspect was arrested while wearing this mask. The only reason for him to wear such a mask was to hide his identity. Innocent people do not need to hide their identity.
  • The prosecution presents the mask as evidence.
  • Prosecutor: Second, the nightstick. The suspect was wielding this stick when he was arrested. What possible motive could an innocent person have for carrying such a brutal weapon? Clearly, an innocent person would have no need for it.
  • The prosecution presents the nightstick as evidence.
  • Prosecutor: Last, but certainly not least, the fingerprint found on the nightstick is clearly the suspect's. Members of the Jury, you are mugging yourselves if you think this man is innocent. Now, I would like to call my first witness. The Prosecution calls the victim.
  • Mr. Murray is called to the stand.
  • Prosecutor: Mr. Murray, I'd like to talk to you about the nightstick. Can you positively identify this as the weapon used by the Defendant to attack you?
  • Mr. Murray: Yes, yes I can. It even matches one of my bruises; the arresting officer checked.
  • Prosecutor: The Prosecution calls the arresting officer.
  • Mr. Murray leaves the stand. The arresting officer is called to the stand.
  • Prosecutor: So, you found a weapon on the Defendant?
  • Arresting officer: Yep, the Defendant had the nightstick on 'im. We confiscated it during the arrest and later tested it for fingerprints.
  • Prosecutor: Can you confirm that the fingerprint is indeed the Defendant's?
  • Arresting officer: Yep, the fingerprint is definitely the mugger's. We also checked the stick against the bruise on the victim, and it's a match.
  • Judge: I think that will be enough. It's time for you to summarise your case to the Jury.
  • Prosecutor: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I have presented evidence that conclusively proves the Defendant attacked the victim in an attempt to steal his winnings.
  • The arresting officer leves the stand.
  • Prosecutor: This time, his victim came away with only bruises. What if, next time, it's an elderly gentleman who can't get away so easily? Or a youth, innocently playing with a ball in the street? For the sake of the citizens of Edgeville, this man must not be allowed to roam the streets!
  • Judge: Thank you, Prosecution. Defence, you may now present your case.
  • (Dialogue ends.)

The defence's case[edit | edit source]

Only if prosecuting.

  • Defender: Members of the Jury, I am going to present you with the evidence that decisively proves the alleged Mugger (level:6) is innocent. The prosecution has kindly pointed out that the nightstick had the Defendant's fingerprint on it. It would be entirely unusual if his fingerprint WASN'T there. The nightstick was taken from him on his arrest! That neither proves nor disproved that he used the nightstick against the 'alleged' victim. It simply proves what we already knew: the Defendant was carrying it at the time of the arrest. It's far from a crime to carry a weapon in Edgeville. That close to the Wilderness, he would be considered strange if he was NOT carrying a weapon. As for presenting the nightstick itself as evidence, I must say: It's no crime to be armed. The Defendant was a traveller through dangerous lands. It would have been foolish to do so without protection. Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, it is also not a crime to cover one's face. My client wears a mask, not to hide his identity, but to cover a tragic, disfiguring scar. He may be sensitive and self-conscious, but that's no reason to suspect him of a brutal attack. The defense calls the victim.
  • Mr. Murray is called to the stand.
  • Defender: Mr. Murray, I'd like to talk to you about the alleged attack.
  • Roger Murray: Uh, sure. I'd just won a chunk of money from a bet I'd made, and was headed to the bank to deposit my winnings. Just then, this mugger followed me and jumped me! He beat me close to death with that stick.
  • Defender: So, when he attacked you, he took your money?
  • Roger Murray: Yeah, he did. Was the first time I'd won a bet in months, and all my money was gone.
  • Defender: Then why was no money found on the defendant when arrested? Or on you, for that matter? Where did the money go?
  • Roger Murray: Err, um, I don't-
  • Defender: Could it be that, like every other time you have placed a bet, you lost all your money? Then, seeing that my client wore a mask, you formed a plan to get a little compensation?
  • Roger Murray: No! No.
  • Roger Murray: The money...must have been misplaced. Wouldn't be surprised if the officers kept it for themselves...
  • Defender: That is very doubtful, Mr. Murray. The defence calls the arresting officer.
  • Mr. Murray leaves the stand. The arresting officer is called to the stand.
  • Defender: What can you tell me about the victim?
  • Arresting Officer: Oh, Mr.Murray is well known to us in the force. He's a notorious gambler in Edgeville, known for betting on long odds and loses.
  • Defender:So, you would say that the victim and only this 'crime' isn't the most trustworthy of people?
  • Arresting Officer: I guess so. In my past dealings with him, he's not been all that truthful.
  • Judge: I think that will be enough. It's time for you to summarise your case to the Jury.
  • (Defender's summary transcript missing. edit)
  • (Same as Transcript:Court Cases § Pronouncing verdict.)

See also[edit | edit source]