Could use more back story into why this group is formed, what their goals are and how they will complete their objectives. If that's covered in the first case then that's fine but people would like slightly more information from an introduction.

Well, the main problem was that everything went by wayyyyyy too fast. I don't understand any of the characters or their motivations.
The dialogue also needs way more work, right now it is just very rushed and no characters really have personalities.
I have to wonder, how was the defendant given a not guilty? Phoenix just said that the witness was in the room or something, and then "lol not guilty".
Yeah I'm just lost, I'm sorry...
But this needs tons of tons of work. Really focus on improving the dialogue and letting events take their natural time to happen, instead of being so rushed. I think that is the main problem with this. It needs to be much longer as well.
There were many presentation errors and graphical errors as well as glitches, but I don't feel like going through those.

First, this case is way too short. This is extremely common for new authors. Current recommendations are for a case to be 1000 frames minimum for something that a player will actually enjoy. The reason for this is that with less than 1000 frames, events are happening too fast, or there aren't enough events. In this case, it was a bit of both. Things happened far, far too fast. The talk with the defendant, Franziska's opening statement, and the two presents post-trial occurred so quickly that important information didn't get conveyed properly. This left open a lot of things that confuse the player. I would very highly recommend replaying 2-1, 3-1, or 4-1 to get a sense of how a "trial-only" segment should run. In my opinion, 3-1 is the best.

The second problem is pretty common for new authors, but extremely important to fix: plot holes!

A plot hole is when an event in a story or game is illogical. The event can be anything from a character acting oddly to something needing more explanation.

I'll walk through my experience with the case.

* A ghost named Pally offers to help Phoenix Wright in bad situations because Phoenix has the defensive skills of a god. This fact in itself is an abundance of plot holes. Why is there a ghost named Pally, and how can he contact Phoenix? Why does Pally want to help Phoenix? Why does Phoenix trust Pally? Why does Pally feel the need to help Phoenix if he's such a great defense attorney?
* Phoenix is talking to his client, that they're talking is good, but nothing of importance is said about the case. What are the defendant and the victim like? Is this a murder? Why is Phoenix defending this person? Why was the defendant arrested?
* Now the judge is asking for the prosecution's opening statement. Good, although doing more than copy-pasting the autopsy report would have been appreciated. It's a very un-Franziska like opening, although her actions made sense before this. I would also like to know more about the victim's and defendant's relationship.
* Now, the next witness. She complains about being shy, but there's no reason to believe this apart from her initial stuttering. Why the personality change? What is the witness's name and occupation? How did the witness come to witness the crime scene?
* The testimony is even weirder. Rofel is shy, but nosy? Why did she assume that there was a relationship problem between the defendant and victim? From where did she the crime scene? Where is the crime scene?
* Okay, so why did the witness think that there was a struggle?
* Why would the witness mistake a struggle for calling a phone? That seems like a rather irrelevant issue to lie about.
* Why is Franziska's evidence accepted without any shock from the court? Whenever a prosecutor in the main series pulled that trick, there was more of a reaction.
* Why isn't Franziska objecting to Phoenix's deduction that the witness was in the room when the murder occurred? From where did Rofel claimed to have witnessed the murder? Why did Franziska let such simple problems slip?
* Why is the judge acquitting the defendant after Phoenix simply accuses the witness of being at the crime scene during the crime? Why did Franziska not object?
* Why does Phoenix talk about "being awesome in court"? Isn't he concerned with the fact that the defendant's life was presumably at stake?
* Looking back, none of the characters showed much personality, besides Franziska before her opening statement.

By the end of the case, the player is left completely and utterly confused. There are so many plot holes that it's difficult to even comprehend what happened.