Neko

I think Dahlia’s case is the best example we have of how capital punishment works in AA, and I also tend to lean on it because it’s at least somewhat realistic to how the death penalty works in real life. Specifically regarding the amount of time it takes for someone to be executed: when it’s sought (not always) there’s generally a separate ‘penalty phase’ trial after the first ‘guilt phase’ trial, then appeals, a generally slow-moving system, etc. This is also backed up by Terry Fawles in 3-4 having been on death row for 5 years before escaping. (This is also why I write Manfred von Karma as dying in prison, rather than from a death sentence – compared to Dahlia and ‘IRL’, it's an incredibly short length of time to go from trial to death.)

So this leads onto what I was originally asked about: the prosecutors’ relationship with the death penalty, particularly around wrongful convictions.

Again, drawing from 1. the canonical death row cases we know about and 2. generally basing my additional 'worldbuilding’ in IRL legal systems, I tend to work with there not being that many executions. I think for MvK and likely Edgeworth, there were people who were likely at least on death row from their prosecuting; we know that Edgeworth knows this has as a minimum led to wrongful convictions:

"Innocent"…? How can we know that? The guilty will always lie, to avoid being found out. There's no way to tell who is guilty and who is innocent! All that I can hope to do is get every defendant declared "guilty"! So I make that my policy. [1-2]

It's possible some of the suspects were indeed innocent. However, it is impossible for us to accurately determine that in every case. All von Karma does is his job, to find the suspect guilty, perfectly. [1-4]

In Manfred von Karma (MvK)'s case, there's definitely been enough time over a “fourty-year career” for people to have then been executed. Perhaps more debatable with Edgeworth, especially if we go with the implications of a ‘realistic’ death penalty discussed above. Dahlia was only just executed during AA3, and her conviction wasn't long into his career, though it's of course possible. Of course, Edgeworth had a change of heart where MvK as far as we know did not. Would Edgeworth have sought to get any of his previous death penalty cases overturned once he decided to pursue “truth”? I'd say yes, but we're heading towards conjecture with that.

[Note both of these sections have contradictions raised by 1-5, which employs an extremely rapid timeframe for capital punishment, as well as Edgeworth’s false convictions being unknown to him. While I enjoy 1-5 a lot, when it retcons events or implications from the original trilogy, I tend to discount it. This is partially because my AU only treats the original trilogy cases as canon, but in the case of these points specifically I think these retcons are a detriment. I've written more about how 1-5 deals with Edgeworth here.]

Franziska and Godot are both interesting here, because unlike Edgeworth and MvK, they are appearing as prosecutors in this country specifically with the goal of facing Phoenix.

Specifically talking about the English-localisation version of Franziska where she’s German here (as this was originally meta about my AU that got out of hand): we know that’s where she’s been prosecuting up until 1-2, and from a ‘drawing from real life to fill in the gaps’ sense we also know there isn’t a death penalty there.

So the questions from that are, was she prosecuting other cases while she was here for a relatively short span of time, “for one sole reason. Revenge” [1-2]? Were those capital crimes, was the death penalty sought and achieved, and were those convictions overturned after she left the country?

At the very least, no executions would have been carried out from her convictions during the trilogy (again, for timeframe reasons). Whether or not there were any in the longer term from any ‘unseen’ trials is more open to interpretation. At least for my AU, I’m saying that her focus on Phoenix means that any other cases she may have taken on wouldn’t have been as brutal and therefore wouldn’t have gotten to that point, but that’s the only place where I can speak as the arbiter of what happens. I’m not applying the decisions I make for that to actual canon.

As for Godot, she’s [obligatory ‘yes my transfem headcanon’ disclaimer] an interesting prosecutor because she’s not as invested in the idea of perfection, or even in the identity of being a prosecutor. She’s testing Phoenix; we see her pointing out contradictions in her own witnesses’ testimonies much more freely than the other prosecutors, and we know about her history as a defense attorney.

From that, I’d say that it perhaps feels even more likely (though by no means definitive – as ever, I want to be clear when I know I’m just giving my opinion) that Godot may not be picking up other trials other than Phoenix’s. That would be my interpretation, especially with my additional focus on the chronic illness side of her character meaning she may not be taking on a full caseload, needing time to recover after each trial as it’s very physically and mentally demanding, etc.