I just replayed 2-2 a few days ago, so this seems like as good a place as any to weigh in.
2-2 seems like it was a very difficult case for the developers to write. You have to re-introduce Maya, as well as bring in Pearls and Franziska. There's a lot of stuff going on at once and as such it feels a bit cramped to me and unbelievable. I've replayed this case numerous times, and I still can't see any reason why Phoenix should win this case. I mean, Phoenix's best defense the entire time is "hey there's a hole... eight inches off the ground in the folding screen!" and "look, here's another hole... eight inches off the ground... in the clothing box!" No effort is really made to have to prove that it's been made by a gunshot or that the two holes are related in anyway... it just is.
And then there's Ini/Mimi Miney. All she has to do to get away with the murder is just. Shut. Up. I'm aware this is basically true in every AA case ever, but I don't know, here it just seems really strange. Why are you even testifying about how much your sister likes sports cars? So Phoenix proves you were lying about having a license picture. All you have to do is say you had your picture taken but weren't able to drive yet. And when Phoenix actually does reveal the twist, like, why doesn't she, like deny it? Or something?
2-2 isn't bad - it's actually a pretty good idea for a case that's just implemented sort of poorly. I guess what I mean to say is that Phoenix's defenses seem really weak in the case, and Franziska / the game just lets it slide since it's only 2-2 and they can't really figure out how else to let you win. It probably needed to be a three-day case.