[felix]

@papermario

Yey someone else writing detective/law stories. ^.^

Yikes, again with your random spaces between lines.

"Does the defense have any final words before I pass judgement?"

Use “ruling” instead of “judgment” (it’s written with out a “e” right?).

"Wait, Your Honour!" The judge gave him a stern look.

Split it onto two lines. Also it could be “Objection Your Honor” for more effect.

pulled out a single bullet resting within a clear bag

How about “plastic bag” instead of “clear bag”?

bronzed bullet

The bullet was suntanned? Can that word be used on objects? Maybe “bronze coated” or “bronze bullet” assuming you are only referring to the material.

Catching a glimpse of the bronzed bullet encased in blood, the young woman sitting in the witness' bench cowered in fear.

Change the comma into a period.

"N-no...please...you can't do this..."

I personally prefer the more common capitalized spelling there “N-No…”.

From across the room, one man pounded his right fist into his desk. "Damn it, is the path you're going to take?!"

Dialog on new line.

"Damn it, is the path you're going to take?!"

Maybe split it into two sentences. Also, I think it should be “is this the path”.

The prosecutor hesitated - even he knew the great sin that would be committed within the sanctuary of law.

The minus sign “-” looks strange when used as a em dash “—”. Personally I think it should be a comma or period instead, or a semicolon.

Once again, the prosecutor was silent; the judge however, was different.

Eliminate first comma. Semicolon could be a period. “was different” might be better as “was not”. Also, reverse “however” and “the judge” in the sentence; perhaps eliminate “however” altogether (if possible).

"And the blood on the bullet?"
"Tests show that it's the victim's blood."

I’m confused as to who is talking. Is it just the defense attorney there?

Passing a forced and pained stare at the witness, he pushed on. "And let's not forget who's fingerprints were on that gun."

“forced and pained” is too long. The construct just creates more confusion then if you used just one of the words or a single word equivalent to them both, like maybe “hurt” or “troubled”. I kind of feel there shouldn’t be a period there, or that the dialog should be on a new line if it is.

"But we already established that Ms. Valerie gripped the gun before the murder occurred. We would have found the victim's fingerprints on the handle as well if your argument was true."

In the UK it’s with out a period (“Ms”) while in the US you have a period (“Ms.”). Personally I think the British got it right, a period should only used for sentences. You can skip over the problem by just using the popular easier to read alternative spelling “Miss”.

Also, again I’m not certain who exactly is talking, the defense or the prosecutor (or the judge?). I can take a guess, but a more direct hint either in the way he speaks (ie. “The defense would like to…”) or just a simple “said the defense attorney”.

The prosecutor was in worse shape, but for the sake of another, he would give up everything he had.

Second comma is definitely useless.

"Your Honour, the prosecution would like to summarize exactly what had happened during the murder."

I don’t think it’s wrong per se, but somehow the word summarize in the current scene seems out of place. Maybe change it to something like “review” or “revise”.

"Go on, then."

This is too informal, gives the impression this is law circus. Maybe write it as “The court will hear the…”.

"On the 5th of June at 12:45 A.M., Ms. Valerie was preparing to return home from the office. About 2 minutes from then, the victim entered the office with a fully loaded 9mm pistol in his hand. The victim then pulled off a shot on the witness, who managed to avoid death after a shot to the stomach. Coughing her own blood onto the crime scene, Ms. Valerie fought back. Isn't that correct?"

The defense attorney could feel the prosecutor's chilling gaze. "That's right. It was determined earlier that the defendant was in the same office, several feet away from the struggle."

• how does the prosecution know the time was exactly 12:45 AM

Anyway, regarding the phrasing. “about 2 minutes from then” is better as “approximately 2 minutes later”, the word “about” is too informal. Also concerning the time I would spell it “AM” instead with out the periods.

Also regarding this “Isn’t that correct?”. I feel the prosecution is stepping the line and verbally assaulting the defense. If the prosecution wishes to summarize then I would expect nothing to happen until the prosecution had finished. At most I would expect the judge to interrupt or the defense to object on any invalid points in the summary.

"The overturned desk that the defendant hid behind and the lack of fingerprints near the scene proved that he wasn't near the fight, didn't it?"

Who’s talking? The defense or the prosecution? Am I suppose to figure it out by reading the dialog after it? =P

"That's absolutely correct, Your Honour. However, the prosecution also clearly stated that my client was guilty because he was attempting to frame the witness for the crime."

• the way the so called “evidence” against the defendant.

No period on the first sentence. “clearly stated” is redundant, and makes the sentence sound unprofessional (from a character perspective I mean). Same with “client”. It’s ambigous who’s client we’re talking about, and also awkward. It’s better to just refer to the client of the defense as the “defendant” since it’s not necessary for the defense attorney to have been hired (one could have been provided). Also I could be wrong but in US/UK it’s “Your Honor” or “Judge”, and not “Your Honour” (Canadian version?)—oh and in Japan it’s neither.

The judge frowned. "And this new evidence of yours will prove otherwise?"

And the defense raised their nose high and said “Duh! Your Honor.” You get the point.

...And that's when time froze.

What’s the purpose of the ellipsis? It’s not a pause since there’s nothing before it, so what is it?

Allow me, then

No comma. Aslo, can’t tell who’s talking.

This bullet however..."

"...is perfectly stable, correct?"

The “correct” kind of dumbs down the scene. I also don’t understand what stable is suppose to mean here. Maybe rephrase it to something like “Yet this bullet… [...] …is intact!” or “[...] …is in perfect condition!” or “[...] …is undamaged!”

No time left...an innocent woman would be sentenced to death, and in exchange, the life of younger girl would be spared.

• where in the world are you sentences to death for a crime like this

"STOP! Wait one moment, Your Honour!" The bailiff burst in through the door in a frantic state.

Reverse the order of the sentences.

Their heads turned towards the defendant, who was now shivering in fear. "Your Honour, the defense has a confession to make. The defendant's fingerprints were found on both bullets."

• Firing the gun would erase any fingerprints.
• Ballistic markings would only match one of the weapons. Even if one of the bullets was destroyed, it’s implausible for the bullet who passed though the victim to still retain enough force to shatter on impact with the safe. By comparing the ballistic markings on the fatal bullet evidence of Miss Valerie’s innocence of the murder.

if you are truly innocent, the courtroom will reward you your freedom.

First of all “rewarding someone something they already own” doesn’t make sense. Secondly I think it’s more appropriate to use “court” instead of “courtroom”, you make it sound like it’s the job of the room and not the people there by emphasizing the room.

The judge nodded. "On charges of first-degree murder, fraud, tampering with evidence, attempted theft, and assault and battery, this court finds the defendant guilty. Court is dismissed." And with that, a screaming defendant was dragged out of the courtroom.

This very wrong. You just sentenced him with out a trial! Based on the new evidence the trial has to be restarted. Also what “tampering with evidence”? What “attempted theft”? and what’s “attempted theft” anyway? As for “assault and battery” unless I’m mistaken assault here refers to verbal violence, since the term only exists in jurisdictions when there is a distinction between physical and verbal assault. So is this verbal assault referring to the interaction with his lawyer? If so then the Judge is out of line, he has a responsibility to listen to all witnesses and the defendant still has a right to a defense. Even a confession can not bypass this responsibility since there are people who are simply serial confessors, or easily pushed into a corner. The defense is also obviously biased by the circumstances and can no longer defend their client.

Staring off into the distance where the 12 year old witness had run to, the two men stood proudly, side by side.

12 year old? And they were going to execute her, when she’s that age? What was she doing at “the office” at that hour anyway? Also, you do know she’s guilty right? She needs to go to jail! =P