Indictment or Non-Indictment, that is the question – Legal Dungeon Walkthrough

Overview

Hello, everyone! The only english guide is incomplete and deserted, I suppose. So I decided to make the guide (something like walkthrough) that gives answers for “dungeon battles” in all eight cases in the game.I hope my guide will be helpful to all who resolved to crawl the depths of Legal Dungeon.

Introduction

But down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid. He is the hero; he is everything.
– Raymond Chandler

Couple things regarding the guide which I want to mention:
– When I decided to make this guide I wanted to make it not only for people who will come for answers but also for people who looking only some tips to answers. So I hided with spoiler tags answers and two kind of tips: part/document where you could find answers and specific pages.
– I didn’t bother making achievements guide because you will get them any way if you decide to clear all cases in the game with all possible outcomes. For some endings/achievements you only need to change the route in the event flowchart by changing outcome in the second chapter case and some earlier chapters if that is necessary.
– Some questions from cases may have more than one option for an answer. For each question I indicate only one possible choice from few possible ones. So feel free to find another choices.
– Some possible choices may be hidden on the first try (they will be white like a normal text but will be clickable). I don’t indicate which choices are hidden because on second and more tries they will get color marks.
– “Common Path” mean choices which don’t affect the case outcome. “Common/Indictment Path” mean choices which affect the access to the Indictment outcome but don’t affect another possible outcome. For example, you can “attack” Enemy throughout all Questioning but in the end you can “give Enemy mercy” and get the Non-Indictment outcome. But if you didn’t “attack” Enemy at any opportunity and if you decided to hit Enemy on the last question you will be stuck on the Non-Indictment outcome in any case. Exception: Chapter IV (you will defeat Enemy on the last choice even if you didn’t “attack” him before).
– In Chapter VI only the Applicable Law choice matter, and other choices don’t affect anything. Hence “Common Path” for all.

Prologue: Bacon …

500 Dollar Fine for Calling an Officer “Bacon …” (XX-XX-20XX)
The В District Court ruled a fine of 500 dollars to A, who was indicted for calling a Police Officer “Bacon …”.
A had been arrested and questioned for jumping a restaurant bill and while in the presence of the informant and six police officers, he yelled “Bacon …” at a Police Officer and was indicted for publicly insulting the victim.

Chapter I: High Wall

Supreme Court, “Stealing Free Goods is Still Stealing” (XX-XX-20XX)
The Supreme Court upheld the original verdict regarding an appeal by Defendant A, who was indicted for taking a pile of free newspapers from a newsstand.
Defendant A was fined 500 dollars for stealing 25 copies, around 35 dollars worth, of free newspapers stocked in a newsstand by a lifestyle magazine publisher, Plaintiff M.

Chapter II: Train of Light

An Ad for Suicide Poison… A Case of Aiding Suicide (XX-XX-20XX)
“A” posted an advertisement for cyanide on an internet suicide cafe. A even conversed with “B”, who was contemplating suicide, via email and phone.
However, the product A was advertising was fraudulent. In the end, В obtained actual cyanide through other means, and committed suicide.
The Supreme Court ruled that A’s action was “limited to an act of fraudulence” and that “as В was already contemplating and searching for specific means of suicide, it is difficult to perceive A as aiding in said suicide.”

Chapter III: Duty to Protect

Rail Worker Found Innocent in Abandonment Case (XX-XX-20XX)
The Supreme Court found A, a rail worker indicted of abandonment, to be Not Guilty.
Station Manager A discovered B, a homeless person, lying on the ground of the station waiting room. В had broken ribs and was too inebriated to get up by himself. A dragged В out of the station, and provided no further aid. В was later found frozen to death in the cold. The prosecution indicted A for abandonment. However, the court ruled that as a station worker was not legally obligated to help the homeless person, “abandonment could not be applied” in this case.

Chapter IV: Fishing

Arresting Thieves Stealing from a Drunk in a Stakeout is Not Entrapment (XX-XX-20XX)
The Supreme Court has ruled that it is not entrapment when police do not help a drunk pedestrian sleeping on the sidewalk during a stakeout, then arrest thieves who try to steal from the drunk victims.
The court judged that “it is not illegal to indict a defendant who voluntarily premeditates and then carries out a crime.”

Chapter V: Unnecessary Criminal

Innocent Freed After 16 Years, Real Murderer Caught After 13 Years (XX-XX-20XX)
When victim В was stabbed to death, A, who was 15 at the time, was blamed for the murder. Despite the lack of evidence, A made a false confession due to excessive police interrogation, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. A few years later, the police caught and questioned the real criminal C, but С was “cleared of suspicion”. A petitioned for a retrial and was found innocent 16 years after the murder. Late as it was, the prosecutors arrested C. A’s attorney announced that “the government authorities who let the real criminal go must apologize and admit responsibility.”

Chapter VI: The Chosen Criminal

Coin-sized Bruise Not Considered an Injury (XX-XX-19XX)
When the police arrested A without first reading the Miranda rights, A resisted, and in the process received a coin-sized bruise on his arm. The medical certificate simply recommended a week of rest for the injury. The Supreme Court ruled that “such a light injury could easily be obtained in everyday life and cannot be seen causing lasting bodily harm or deterioration of health. In conclusion, the bruise cannot be considered an injury.”

Chapter VII: Natural Criminal

Judge-Baffling Willful Negligence Ruling “Different Every Time” (XX-XX-20XX)
Our nation’s laws are much more lenient towards those who committed accidental crimes than those who willfully commit crimes. It is common for the court’s ruling to change depending on “willful negligence”, which determines whether a criminal recognized that the results of his or her action could cause a crime. The court judges willful negligence depending on various evidence and situations. However, this process is difficult, as the only true person who knows if the defendant recognized that a result of crime could occur is the defendant him/herself.

Notes

If you see any mistakes please let me know.