"Does Your Honor wish to ask the defendant about this matter?"

There are various procedural objections Nirvana could, theoretically, raise here.

However, objecting to a completely reasonable question is typically viewed as very strong evidence that the answer to the question would contradict the advocate's position. 

A perfectly Lawful outsider could, theoretically, pledge not to consider such objections as evidence, and then genuinely not consider them as such. The Boneyard's judges are not perfectly Lawful, and furthermore have made no such pledges.

Heaven and Nirvana have analyzed their trial records, and it's almost never worth it, to try to stop a petitioner from answering a question like this. In most cases, the answer isn't harmful anyway; most people's internal narratives of their own actions make them look better, not worse.

Nirvana is silent.

"Very well. Menas Karam, please tell us whether you were aware that some of the people you falsified evidence against were innocent. Before you answer, I remind you that petitioners in this courtroom are under the influence of a truth-compelling enchantment."

"Any chance we could stick the weird cat under that enchantment as well?"

"That's out of order."

"Nirvana would be happy to negotiate a new set of trial rules that enjoined advocates against making arguments that they assessed as false, provided that such a rule were fairly applied to all advocates."

"That's out of order. Can you all please just let the defendant answer the question."

"I don't see why it matters. A court-assistant's duty is to ensure convictions, and I am a master of my craft. If that means a few innocent people end up in jail, that's a small price to pay for perfection."

"..........Can you elaborate further on that fascinating position?"

"It's very simple. Once the constabulary's investigators have handed someone over to us, our success is measured by whether the judge ultimately determines that the individual is guilty. The more frequently they are condemned, the more successful we are. As a court-assistant, I strive to be perfect, to never allow someone to walk free. Caring about whether someone is innocent or guilty could only make me worse at my task."

"See? Caring about perfection and personal excellence is a very Irorite sentiment. Lawful neutral."

"Worship of a god, let alone aligning oneself with some of that god's principles, is insufficient to show that one shares that god's alignment. In re Miyazaki, 1184."

"Listening to obviously stupid arguments is a waste of time. In re Annoying Cat, 4723."

"You just made that citation up."

"Please refrain from citing cases that don't actually exist.

"I am prepared to rule that Menas Karam is non-Good. It currently seems highly likely that he is Evil, but I acknowledge that further evidence may come out that would point away from that conclusion. I ask all parties who wish to present their arguments on Karam's systemic alignment to now do so."

"Axis respectfully abstains."

"The man spent nearly his entire life subverting both local laws and the very concept of a Lawful alignment. He made up evidence that didn't exist, repeatedly lied about it, and used these actions to subvert what is otherwise a mostly Lawful legal system. He's chaotic."

"Your Honor, it's true that this man sometimes used dishonesty and other conventionally unLawful tactics as a means to advance his goals. But it's important to examine what those goals actually were. 

"The defendant was acting as part of a Lawful system, acting according to a strictly regimented code. It is true that this code was not always in compliance with local laws, but this does not inherently make it unLawful. In re Odalia. Deception, too, does not necessarily make someone unLawful, Abaddon v. Mephistopheles, -9301, and to the extent this court finds that deception is unLawful, it was mitigated by the defendant's open acknowledgement that he uses deception in some cases. Regardless, the defendant's strict alignment of his actions with a regimented code is more than sufficient for a finding of Law.

"As a less significant point, the defendant was also deeply motivated by the idea of excellence and self-perfection, and has stated such in this very courtroom. As the ocelot stated, this is a Lawful motivation.

"Menas Karam is Lawful Evil, and by rights his soul belongs to Hell."

Bellina hates arguing for Abaddon. Abaddon means giving up. It is vanishingly unlikely that any soul condemned to Hell or the Abyss could ever be redeemed, but not impossible; Nocticula was a god, and even she was able to find her way to Chaotic Neutral.

But if she never argues for Abaddon, some small fraction of souls that would have rather had oblivion will go to Hell. Souls that are judged Neutral Evil are given the chance to choose between the Evil afterlives, and Bellina would never will a soul to suffer if it would prefer otherwise.

"Your Honor, if you find the defendant is Evil, it is clearly most appropriate to render a decision for Neutral Evil. It is true that the defendant was attempting to act in accordance with a rigid code, and that he was driven to pursue perfection. However, it is also true that he knowingly undermined the Lawful function of the courts by introducing forged evidence. Neither intent nor outcomes can fully determine someone's alignment.

"In this case, the defendant has served both Law and Chaos to a significant degree. Therefore, it would be most accurate to assign him to systemic Neutrality."

"Hell observes that Nirvana argued mere minutes ago that the defendant was clearly Lawful."

"Systemic alignment and moral alignment cannot necessarily be disconnected. Heaven v. Asmodeus."

"It's almost funny. Even in the afterlife, there are court-assistants who style themselves as needing to prove people 'innocent' no matter what. There are court-assistants like that in Taldor, but I hadn't realized that the advocates here would be every bit as desperate."