Asking regular creamy or al dente is relevant because it's part of what determines how long Mr. Tipton cooked the grits: if he likes them al dente, he needs less time to cook them. Creamy, he needs more.
Remember, in the movie Joe Pesci’s character is an inexperienced lawyer and he never went to court before. It seems reasonable that he would make these mistakes. Perhaps the prosecutor character felt that he was so inept, he didn’t need to object at that time.
The biggest problem with this movie is the prosecutors character being made to actually care if the defendant was guilty or not. In reality, he wouldn't move to drop the chargers: he would have created another narrative and still tried to get the jury to convict.
Just prior to this scene, the public defendant attorney cross examined the same witness and asked about his glasses and whether or not he was wearing them when he saw the two yutes. Mr Tipton replied that there were reading glasses. A great example of not asking a question that you don't know the answer to. Very nice commentary, thanks
What makes that even funnier is that Stan had earlier raised that concern that Vinny would do exactly what the public defender ends up doing, which is inadvertently helping the prosecution make its case
Re: positioning - He specifically walks to the back of the jury box when he wants them to pay attention to the defendant and the fact that he is flustered and panicking for an answer that he doesn't have.
He is also positioning himself with the jurors on the side of longer grits coking time, versus the witness and his five minute span. "All of us vs. him"
Yes, Vinny is badgering the witness. The witness is an arrogant jerk and deserves a good badgering. And while the question might be stricken from the record - Vinny's humiliation is satisfying and the jury will likely find this funny - and in which case you've sealed your argument.
I don't get the people who keeps saying its a movie. Of course, she knows it. She's just stating what would be wrong from a real lawyer's perpective. She's not trying to say that the movie is bad because of the inaccuracy. The defence rests.
I'm surprised that none of the lawyers who have reacted to this scene mention the fact that he took care of any possible answers that could have allowed for a shorter cooking time. If he did not ask how he likes his grits, the guy could have came back later and said that he likes his grits al dente or undercooked which could shorten that time to a possible 5 minutes or perhaps 7 or 8 minutes, which is still not a lot of time and is way shorter than the 20 minutes that he wants the jury to think about. And of course the instinct grits was asked for the same reason because instant grits would take a minute or two to make. So it was brilliant to ask how he likes his grits and whether he makes instant grits or not. Most people probably know that there are many people out there who would rather lie than get caught making a mistake. If he did not ask about the grits and assumed that he made regular grits, that would take 20 minutes. Then once the guy realized he was mistaken, he may have lied and said that he might have used instinct grits that day or that he sometimes likes them. Al dente
I JUST graduated from law school (at 53 - and just took the bar) - but I must say, your tips were EXCELLENT and they made me think. Thanks for the review and the tips! (and yea, this is one of my fav movies!)
When the prosecutor objected, the judge sustained he moved on to the next question. At this point he's trying to discredit the witness, and get the jury to question the credibility of the prosecutor's case.
I can remember the first time I was on jury duty. It was a civil case and the defense attorney had called as a hostile witness an employee of the company he was suing. The defense attorney first asked the witness if he had talked to anyone about the case. The witness said he had only talked about it with the attorney for the plaintiff. The defense attorney then went on to accuse the witness of lying on the stand since it was obvious that he and the attorney for the company had created the story he told in court. Naturally the plaintiff made objections every time and gave the reason for the objection which the judge sustained. In fact there were even several times when the judge made the objection himself rather than waiting for the plaintiff to make another objection for the same thing again.
As someone who has testified on MANY criminal trials, It's interesting point of view about the fact she says that you as the attorney should bring up about the 20 minutes to cook grits. 7:00 I disagree totally, as it is FAR more impactful for the witness to say that they were wrong, than the defense attorney, as it destroys all of their previous testimony and discredits them as a witness, which was his intention the entire time. Not sure why you would have a civil trial attorney review a criminal court trial, demeanor is quite different.
im not a lawyer but i had issue with her saying the question about the watch was irellavent question. if the whole point of the witnesses testimony was they didnt have the time would asking if they had a watch or clock or any device to tell time be relevant to proving he had proof of time or how much its passed which again time was his defense. also with the grits and how they make them dont see how that would be not relevant either. like i said im not a lawyer however i am a cook and i can tell you in terms of trying to prove you have a bearing on time asking about how food is made is 100 percent relevant because how you make food can def impact the time it takes to make. for example if he would have asked was it just you or your family you were cooking for making more of something is going to take more time because your cooking extra serving
This is one of my favorite comedies and, although I’m not a lawyer, I recognize that the Joe Pesci character behaves inappropriately numerous times, and that the prosecutor would most likely object much more than he did. That said, I love the TH-cam videos that feature lawyers discussing certain parts of the movie. It’s great to get those insights from people who can isolate the details better than the layperson
I AM a criminal defense lawyer and I don't really understand why so many of these youtube lawyers claim this is a very accurate representation of what a trial is like. I could see it being used in law school to point out flaws. She does a better job than some of the others I have watched, focusing more on their behavior and actions than on the law and procedure. I feel like she made the wrong objections during the grit scene. I'd have made a foundation or facts not in evidence objection. No one testified that it takes 20 minutes to cook grits. The judge didn't take judicial notice of the laws of physics. Vinny testified...
@@sallyatticum No one needed to testify as they jury were all southerners who knew their grits. Or that was the assumption on which that choice was predicated. And - do you need a witness? Just look on the box! It'll tell yah!
@@sallyatticum And I've been told by a number of attorneys that this movie is shown in every law school in the country. And while we're at it, I met a high court judge at the Old Bailey who told me uses it as a law teacher.
In the first year of law school you are taught not to ask questions you don't know the answers to; but as LegalEagle points out, this open ended question works for the defense: either he claims he can cook grits in 5 minutes (but looses credibility with the jury) or he agrees it took much longer (giving the defendant reasonable doubt).
I disagree with lots and lots of the attorney’s analysis. She might object because she knows exactly where he’s headed and wants to break his momentum, not because the question is objectionable.
I always liked the scene where he is cross examining the sweet little old lady and surprisingly is on the gentle side of showing her that it may be time for thicker lenses on her glasses....the measuring tape scene...where the judge fowls up the 'how many fingers am I holding up' test he was conducting with her.
Disagree with a number of her points, when asking the witness the question of “are WE to believe that it takes you 5 minutes to cook your grits” etc. his relocation in walking directly at the jury is the perfect way to ask that question, first off he says WE as he is looking directly at the jurors….They would be looking directly at him as he for the most part blocks their view of the witness, at that time he was making direct eye contact with the jurors which enables him to see their reaction, or temperature check their reaction, very important. And by standing next to the jurors box and turning to finish his question after saying “are WE to believe”, is exactly how a smart attorney would do it. He takes all the attention on him, then at the appropriate time diverts it back to the witness by turning and facing the witness as he finishes his question, inevitably the jurors would all look at the witness at the same time he does. That is exactly what you would want them to do because you already know the answer to your question or at least the response Will show the jurors that the witness is going to be uncomfortable and having to change/ratify his answer, which puts doubt in his testimony. I’ve watched many live trials that were regarding some monstrous trials, and the vast majority of the time the worst attorney in the room is the prosecutor, and by worst I mean pathetic. Makes sense though, most people become attorneys for the money and the money is not on the prosecutors side. I do however believe, check that, I know that so many attorneys would benefit from some high-level sales classes. Taking debate, playing chess… multiple things to improve their skills. Heck even acting classes would help a lot.
This is one of my favorite movies of all time and your analysis was amazing! However, that relevance objection would have been definitely overruled. If he would have said "instant" to the grits, it would have destroyed the entire cross, but "regular" led to "not instant" which definitely led to timing. Tipton opened the door to that timing when he testified earlier using breakfast as a benchmark.
What? He was not only trying to refute his testimony; he was using sarcasm and outright ridicule to completely obliterate every single word he said. His final "I got no more use for this guy" was aimed at the jury to completely dismiss him.
Always always always expand on your answer when you are being cross-examined. You can easily get an attorney off the rails and pissed off and they will fuck up. Particularly a skeevy one.
This analytical clip adds to the entertainment of the movie scenes it reviews. Certainly, the magic of a movie is the value of the entertainment it offers it's audience. "My Cousin Vinny" and this sidebar analysis offer that entertainment which many other movies seem to be missing. I would love to see a similar analysis (by "America's Sheriff") of Jackie Gleason's roll in the very entertaining movie Smokey and The Bandit. Blessings, Wayne.
Just a note: the "creamy vs. al dente" question would have relevance as the cooking time varies between the two methods. He states he likes them regular (creamy), which would lengthen the amount of time needed to prepare them. Great review, keep up the good work!
I think there were three options, regular, creamy (a bit more time), or al dente (a bit less time). Of course Mr. Tipton has probably never heard of "al dente" before.
That question wasn't hypothetical as much as it was rhetorical. Also al dente takes less time to cook. A judge who knows how to cook grits would overrule your objection. Saving that for the closing argument doesn't give the opportunity to get the witness to recant his testimony.
This is a terrific take on the ubiquitous "Reaction" video for a few reasons. Commenters, NB: As noted in the WSJ, My Cousin Vinny ("MCV") is used at elite law schools as a teaching aid for core subjects (evidence, procedure, legal ethics). More than a dozen courts have actually cited MCV in court opinions and it has a cult following among Legal professionals, including fairly famous judges. As for this video, it's pretty cool for its instructional value - interesting tactics in objecting, why an attorney would stand where, and how arguments are presented versus how they shouldn't be. More generally, simply as a device this reaction video should be a great draw for traffic to the firm's channel. It 's also demonstrative of a firm that thinks creatively and has a real personality. Lastly we learn that the presenter is smart, skilled and experienced, yet warm, down to earth, and infinitely charming. Maybe worth getting hurt and calling across the country for advice from. Maybe. I don't know. I have a surgery coming up and if it goes sideways... Not that I'm hoping or anything. Oh yeah, this firm gets very good reviews from clients.
An error in analysis that this attorney makes in this video review of the courtroom behavior of Vinny Gambini (Joe Pesci) in the film, "My Cousin Vinny" is that attorneys in court should not ask open-ended questions of a testifying witness because the witness can go off into different areas in his or her response. But according to the late former LA District Attorney's Office prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, an open-ended question can be effective in court provided that the attorney knows what answer the witness is going to give and then asks a follow-up question or series of questions which undermines the credibility of a witness during cross-examination. Bugliosi points out in one of his published books the fallacy taught in law schools that an attorney should never ask the "Why" question of a testifying witness, and Bugliosi gave a specific example in one of his books from an actual instance in which he asked a witness in court the "Why" question regarding a witness' actions on a particular date and time in order to undermine the witness' credibility because Bugliosi knew from the witness' earlier statement(s) either in court or to the police, the witness' usual practice to go to a certain place at a particular hour. Bugliosi asked the witness if it would have been going out of his (the witness's) way to stop off at a particular place on the witness's route to a particular destination. Bugliosi was able to, in that particular case, undermine the witness' credibility because it would not have been going out of his (the witness') way to stop off at a particular place on the witness' route as was the witness' usual practice. Another error this attorney makes in her comments about this courtroom scene in the movie, "My Cousin Vinny" is that if an attorney over objects time after time during a trial that can really annoy a jury an put the overzealous objecting attorney in a bad light as far as the jury is concerned, which any good attorney would definitely not want to do! If your an attorney, you definitely do not want to get a jury pissed-off at you or your client by over objecting during a trial. Had the jury during the O.J. Simpson criminal trial been a normal jury, they would have been very irritated at Johnny Cochran and Barry Sheck's numerous, frivolous objections during Marsha Clark and Chris Darden's closing arguments which were , as Bugliosi pointed out, a deliberate attempt by the defense to not only throw off the flow of the prosecutors' closing arguments but also a deliberate attempt to thwart justice. As Bugliosi pointed out, Clark just rolled her eyes when the defense made ridiculous objections instead of doing what Bugliosi said in his book, "Outrage: The Five Reasons O.J.Simpson Got Away With Murder" that he would have done in that situation in court if the defense made frivolous objections during the prosecution's closing arguments, by asking to approach the bench and saying to Judge Ito, "the next time one of the defense attorneys makes a frivolous objection, I want you to warn them against doing so again, and if they do it again, put the objecting attorney in the holding cell. I want you to do your job your Honor. And if you don't do that, then I'm going to make my objections to their improper behavior right in front of that jury and the TV camera"! Bugliosi would also say that this attorney is wrong in that she appears to believe that a witness should be treated, as the old expression goes, "with kit gloves" as if the witness cannot be aggressively questioned by a cross-examining attorney by raising his or her voice during cross-examination! The prosecution in the Simpson criminal trial, as Bugliosi pointed out, treated forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee as if Lee is infallible! Judge Ito blundered when he told the prosecutor Hank Goldberg just before Goldberg was going to crossexamine Lee, to "just get in and get out" which clearly indicated that the judge was overly impressed with Lee's credentials and "expertise"! As Bugliosi pointed out, Lee misled the jury by indicating that there was a second set of shoe prints at the Bundy crime scene implying a possible second assailant in that case. But as Bugliosi correctly stated, the FBI expert William Bozniack testified that the second set of shoe prints were from the workman who laid the cement walkway at Nicole Brown's Bundy Drive condominium years earlier and definitely not the shoe prints of a second assailant! Bugliosi also pointed out that Lee also failed to do a test print exam on Ron Goldman's jeans and therefore failed to recognize that a pair of jeans has ridges and grooves between the fibers of the material from which the jeans are made. Bugliosi stated that had he been the prosecutor in that case, he would have criticized Lee in his closing argument saying to the jury, " How dare he (Lee) mislead you folks to believe that there is a second set of shoe prints at the Bundy crime scene indicating a possible second assailant in this case"!
@@akaLaBrujaRoja . There is also the term, "kit gloves" which are work gloves made of cloth, latex or vinyl material. Both versions of the expression can be used to mean, "to treat with caution or care". So my statement in my posted comment was correct not incorrect as you erroneously asserted.
I have a legal question regarding the show. When Vinny has (the hostile witness) Ms DeVito on the stand, he asks her if the defense is wrong and she perks up confirming the defense is wrong. As the defense lawyer, shouldn't Vinny have asked, "Is the prosecution wrong" instead ? As defense attorney, isn't he supposed to prove the prosecution's argument wrong. ......instead of his own case of defending the two "yutes" ? Thank you.
Vinny had already realized that his theory was wrong. By putting her on the stand, he's giving her the chance to show off. It's an apology of sorts for the way he'd treated her a little earlier. The twist is that by showing that "the defense's case [doesn't] hold water", he shows the the prosecution's case was **also** wrong -- because the car was a different make, and therefore the criminals must have been a different pair of guys.
For a more detailed reason he wanted to prove that the defense was wrong was that he argued that a second Buick skylark made the tire marks. Miss Vito proved that wrong because it couldn't have been a Buick skylark at all but instead a Pontiac Tempest that made those tracks proving that the boys were not in the car that sped off.
I believe that in this specific case, it was quicker to reveal the truth by dismantling his own theory first. He, falsifying his identity, was pressed for time. In most cases, I would say that you're right, but to almost everything, there are conditional exceptions that will cause a person to choose an unorthodox option. If both sides are wrong, it really doesn't matter which direction you choose, unless of course, you're trying to escape a Mississippi judge before he finds out you're a fraud! Then you just want the quickest route to the end!
The purpose of learning is not necessarily to follow what is commonly practiced. Those things are there to give one a basic foundation. A person who has enough intellectual creativity to "think outside the box", can deviate from the basics. For instance, notice that Mr. Gambini walked over to the jury because he was setting the witness up. He knew the answer to his question was going to be nonsensical and that he would be able to make an intense impression on the jury by acting as if he almost couldn't hear the answer at first, and then reacting to it with intensity.
I enjoy the differences in opinions of some of the lawyers I've seen react to this. I believe in the end, some lawyers give the character more leeway than he probably would have gotten just because they really like the movie. 😃
I disagree about the grits strategy. "How is it possible" isn't _just_ the discouraged format, it's the question with which he gets the witness to impeach himself immediately, in the moment of his testimony. Saving this epiphany until the closing? Let the unimpeached witness testimony stand all that time, solidifying itself in the jury's minds, _then_ showing it to be a foolish timeframe in the closing (where the judge and both lawyers are repeating over and over is the part of the trial that is not evidence)? Sorry, that guy's 5 minutes has to be shut down now -- later is too late.
I'm pretty sure -- it's a death-penalty case. Better to get someone of proven competence than a wasting everybody's time with a trial that reaches a guilty verdict only to be ruled a mistrial on appeal.
No he wouldn't have it's the defendant who decides who his attorney Vinni isn't a state appointed attorney but the judge would probably not respect him as much and treat him different
@@alanrickett2537 Do you mean the work of fiction that may be using dramatic license? I’m asking about real life. Can a judge refuse to let him work on the case?
@@Swalker20659 the answer in the movie is acute if you did not pass the bar in that state you have to prove you ate qualified and often have a second chair that is Now how that's done on the state on question I cannot swear to. The fa t it's his first case 8s less important then that he's had not pass the bar in the state but would still have a barring
I realize you're an attorney so you're critiquing this from a legal standpoint. However, it's pure Hollywood entertainment. And as the witness states, "No self-respecting Southerner would use instant grits." As someone who has lived in the Southern US most of her adult life, I was amused to find the Vinny character picked up on that, never having tasted grits until he talked to the man at the diner while he and Marissa Tomei's character were having breakfast. The didn't know what the heck grits are. :)
I think that asking what type of grits he had is very relevant. You are attempting to set a timeline of events and discredit the witness. Different types of grits with or without different ingredients required different prep and cook times.
I'm not disagreeing that perhaps hypothetical questions are not part of what goes on in a courtroom, but I believe that hypothetical questions absolutely should be allowed in the course of a cross-examination. Without people that had the ability ask "what if", the world would be back in the stone age. Not only that, but sometimes it is necessary to see if doubt could be introduced into the mind of a witness, in order to break down the certainty of a major component of what the other side sees as evidence.
I'm disturbed that lawyers are taught, in law school, how to manipulate people 😳 on such a base level as body positioning. I'm even more disturbed that I'm surprised by this.
I have to kind of disagree with the idea of only bringing in the point of the grits taking 20 minutes to cook vs. 5 minutes at your closing statements. I am not a lawyer, but here are my thoughts- strike the iron while it is hot! Bringing this in now, not only weakens the testimony of the witness, it also casts a bit of of a cloud over the rest of his testimony. Waiting until the end, you are relying on the memory of the jury to remember this part of his testimony, leaving the rest of his testimony still relatively unchallenged/untainted. Bringing it in now, as the Joe Pesci character did, not only changes the timeline, but also aids in casting a doubt about the rest of the testimony of this witness, thereby making it less powerful/effective (giving it less weight, to put it differently) in the jury members' minds. Just my 2c.
Interesting to see a real attorney react to a funny movie. I’d love to see you do a few courtroom clips from “A Few Good Men” or at least the Oregano scene on the ball field.
Just remember that "A Few Good Men" is a military court and has different rules and unless an attorney has experience with them they are going to be in a worse state then Vinny was. LOL
Asking regular creamy or al dente is relevant because it's part of what determines how long Mr. Tipton cooked the grits: if he likes them al dente, he needs less time to cook them. Creamy, he needs more.
You beat me to it.
"I got no more use for this guy"... you know you want to say that at your last trial before you retire...
😂😂😂😂😂
Remember, in the movie Joe Pesci’s character is an inexperienced lawyer and he never went to court before. It seems reasonable that he would make these mistakes. Perhaps the prosecutor character felt that he was so inept, he didn’t need to object at that time.
The biggest problem with this movie is the prosecutors character being made to actually care if the defendant was guilty or not. In reality, he wouldn't move to drop the chargers: he would have created another narrative and still tried to get the jury to convict.
He made mistakes throughout the movie. That's what made it so entertaining. Brooklyn Street Lawer Goes to Alabama Formal Court.
Actually, in the movie he says he fought a ticket. So he was in court at one time. (and he won).
@@D.E._Sarcarean You believe a prosecutor would like to prosecute an innocent person?
Do you remember the italian that leaned forward into the mic and said " not gay"
Just prior to this scene, the public defendant attorney cross examined the same witness and asked about his glasses and whether or not he was wearing them when he saw the two yutes. Mr Tipton replied that there were reading glasses. A great example of not asking a question that you don't know the answer to.
Very nice commentary, thanks
What makes that even funnier is that Stan had earlier raised that concern that Vinny would do exactly what the public defender ends up doing, which is inadvertently helping the prosecution make its case
How he likes his grits is relevant. It determines the cook time.
Yes.
You know this chick don't know anything
And if he cooked instant grits is relevant as well
Exactly. Know your subject matter ...a good attorney would know that, yes?
But wouldn't he need someone ( expert )to confirm the actual time it takes to cook grits . Mr Gambini is making an assumption.
From a retired police officer.. That’s a nice critique to one of the best comedies ever made! ❤️👍🏼
Re: positioning - He specifically walks to the back of the jury box when he wants them to pay attention to the defendant and the fact that he is flustered and panicking for an answer that he doesn't have.
He is also positioning himself with the jurors on the side of longer grits coking time, versus the witness and his five minute span. "All of us vs. him"
This is one attorney I wouldn’t want representing me!
In cross-examination you can ask a “hypothetical question” if it’s based on facts in evidence.
Hmm, depends on the state.
How he likes the grits would give a range of time spent cooking so it is absolutely relevant.
Yes, Vinny is badgering the witness. The witness is an arrogant jerk and deserves a good badgering. And while the question might be stricken from the record - Vinny's humiliation is satisfying and the jury will likely find this funny - and in which case you've sealed your argument.
There is actually a professor who teaches Law here in Alabama that makes watching that movie a course requirement.
As she admits she is a civil not a criminal lawyer
I've heard before that "My Cousin Vinny" is pretty close to the real thing. Thanks for the fascinating analysis.
All an opposing lawyer would have to do to know your strategy is watch this clip.
I'm not a lawyer, But you have to admit that's one funny movie.......
I don't get the people who keeps saying its a movie. Of course, she knows it. She's just stating what would be wrong from a real lawyer's perpective. She's not trying to say that the movie is bad because of the inaccuracy.
The defence rests.
Thanks, that was very entertaining and informative. I’ve always wondered how realistic it was!
I'm just happy no lawyer wrote this screenplay. The movie works very well.
I love this movie. This scene has me crying every time.
Thank you for posting this and letting us know how it goes about in reality.
I'm surprised that none of the lawyers who have reacted to this scene mention the fact that he took care of any possible answers that could have allowed for a shorter cooking time. If he did not ask how he likes his grits, the guy could have came back later and said that he likes his grits al dente or undercooked which could shorten that time to a possible 5 minutes or perhaps 7 or 8 minutes, which is still not a lot of time and is way shorter than the 20 minutes that he wants the jury to think about. And of course the instinct grits was asked for the same reason because instant grits would take a minute or two to make. So it was brilliant to ask how he likes his grits and whether he makes instant grits or not. Most people probably know that there are many people out there who would rather lie than get caught making a mistake. If he did not ask about the grits and assumed that he made regular grits, that would take 20 minutes. Then once the guy realized he was mistaken, he may have lied and said that he might have used instinct grits that day or that he sometimes likes them. Al dente
I JUST graduated from law school (at 53 - and just took the bar) - but I must say, your tips were EXCELLENT and they made me think. Thanks for the review and the tips!
(and yea, this is one of my fav movies!)
Great job. This was informative.
love your analysis, very appealing smile..loved this movie!
One of my favorite movies of all time. It's very cool to know that an attorney with a sense of humor also like it.
Creamy grits take longer to cook than al dente, a term for not fully cooked pasta.
Right
He should have subpoenaed the grits themselves.
"How long does it take you, on average, to cook Mr Grit?"
"20 minutes."
"I'm finished with dis guy!"
Entertaining clip. I wondered what a lawyer would say about a movie trial. You should do more.
You can ask an open ended question if the witness can’t give an answer that will hurt you.
When the prosecutor objected, the judge sustained he moved on to the next question. At this point he's trying to discredit the witness, and get the jury to question the credibility of the prosecutor's case.
Thank you dear!
"not a criminal attorney" "civil"= ambulance chaser
Very cool observation of this scene. Nice job!
I can remember the first time I was on jury duty. It was a civil case and the defense attorney had called as a hostile witness an employee of the company he was suing. The defense attorney first asked the witness if he had talked to anyone about the case. The witness said he had only talked about it with the attorney for the plaintiff. The defense attorney then went on to accuse the witness of lying on the stand since it was obvious that he and the attorney for the company had created the story he told in court. Naturally the plaintiff made objections every time and gave the reason for the objection which the judge sustained. In fact there were even several times when the judge made the objection himself rather than waiting for the plaintiff to make another objection for the same thing again.
You are great in offering this to us. I just subscribed! Great video.
N D from CT.
This is why people go to jail for no reason. All these things u can't say.
As someone who has testified on MANY criminal trials, It's interesting point of view about the fact she says that you as the attorney should bring up about the 20 minutes to cook grits. 7:00
I disagree totally, as it is FAR more impactful for the witness to say that they were wrong, than the defense attorney, as it destroys all of their previous testimony and discredits them as a witness, which was his intention the entire time. Not sure why you would have a civil trial attorney review a criminal court trial, demeanor is quite different.
im not a lawyer but i had issue with her saying the question about the watch was irellavent question. if the whole point of the witnesses testimony was they didnt have the time would asking if they had a watch or clock or any device to tell time be relevant to proving he had proof of time or how much its passed which again time was his defense. also with the grits and how they make them dont see how that would be not relevant either. like i said im not a lawyer however i am a cook and i can tell you in terms of trying to prove you have a bearing on time asking about how food is made is 100 percent relevant because how you make food can def impact the time it takes to make. for example if he would have asked was it just you or your family you were cooking for making more of something is going to take more time because your cooking extra serving
Yep, I agree 100%; criminal law has lots of strategy involved. Its not even in the same league as civil law.
To quote the movie: "You're fired. I want HIM!"
My Cousin Vinny is probably ny favorite legal comedy movie ever
This is one of my favorite comedies and, although I’m not a lawyer, I recognize that the Joe Pesci character behaves inappropriately numerous times, and that the prosecutor would most likely object much more than he did. That said, I love the TH-cam videos that feature lawyers discussing certain parts of the movie. It’s great to get those insights from people who can isolate the details better than the layperson
I AM a criminal defense lawyer and I don't really understand why so many of these youtube lawyers claim this is a very accurate representation of what a trial is like. I could see it being used in law school to point out flaws. She does a better job than some of the others I have watched, focusing more on their behavior and actions than on the law and procedure. I feel like she made the wrong objections during the grit scene. I'd have made a foundation or facts not in evidence objection. No one testified that it takes 20 minutes to cook grits. The judge didn't take judicial notice of the laws of physics. Vinny testified...
@@sallyatticum No one needed to testify as they jury were all southerners who knew their grits. Or that was the assumption on which that choice was predicated. And - do you need a witness? Just look on the box! It'll tell yah!
@@sallyatticum And I've been told by a number of attorneys that this movie is shown in every law school in the country. And while we're at it, I met a high court judge at the Old Bailey who told me uses it as a law teacher.
In the first year of law school you are taught not to ask questions you don't know the answers to; but as LegalEagle points out, this open ended question works for the defense: either he claims he can cook grits in 5 minutes (but looses credibility with the jury) or he agrees it took much longer (giving the defendant reasonable doubt).
I disagree with lots and lots of the attorney’s analysis. She might object because she knows exactly where he’s headed and wants to break his momentum, not because the question is objectionable.
🤦🏾♂️
Hey Bolingbrook, Elgin in the house. Thanks for this. This explains a lot. I watch a lot of trials.
AWESOME!! YOUR AWESOME!!
The relevance of how he likes his grits cooked is the time spent cooking them.
I believe the fully aggressive style of cross-examination as Mr. Gambini did it, should be generally permitted and encouraged.
"How he likes them is not really relevant"...spoken like a true Yankee lol.
I always liked the scene where he is cross examining the sweet little old lady and surprisingly is on the gentle side of showing her that it may be time for thicker lenses on her glasses....the measuring tape scene...where the judge fowls up the 'how many fingers am I holding up' test he was conducting with her.
Exactly why I love this movie and not court TV
" I got no use for this guy " was comic. Hopefully can do a full reaction. . .
Disagree with a number of her points, when asking the witness the question of “are WE to believe that it takes you 5 minutes to cook your grits” etc. his relocation in walking directly at the jury is the perfect way to ask that question, first off he says WE as he is looking directly at the jurors….They would be looking directly at him as he for the most part blocks their view of the witness, at that time he was making direct eye contact with the jurors which enables him to see their reaction, or temperature check their reaction, very important. And by standing next to the jurors box and turning to finish his question after saying “are WE to believe”, is exactly how a smart attorney would do it. He takes all the attention on him, then at the appropriate time diverts it back to the witness by turning and facing the witness as he finishes his question, inevitably the jurors would all look at the witness at the same time he does. That is exactly what you would want them to do because you already know the answer to your question or at least the response Will show the jurors that the witness is going to be uncomfortable and having to change/ratify his answer, which puts doubt in his testimony. I’ve watched many live trials that were regarding some monstrous trials, and the vast majority of the time the worst attorney in the room is the prosecutor, and by worst I mean pathetic. Makes sense though, most people become attorneys for the money and the money is not on the prosecutors side. I do however believe, check that, I know that so many attorneys would benefit from some high-level sales classes. Taking debate, playing chess… multiple things to improve their skills. Heck even acting classes would help a lot.
Thank you
This is one of my favorite movies of all time and your analysis was amazing! However, that relevance objection would have been definitely overruled. If he would have said "instant" to the grits, it would have destroyed the entire cross, but "regular" led to "not instant" which definitely led to timing. Tipton opened the door to that timing when he testified earlier using breakfast as a benchmark.
It would have destroyed it IF Vinny had not already asked that question in deposition.
I would love to hear your comments of Marissa Tomei part
Thank you this was very helpful and informative 👍👍
@Viva Frei You are in Canada. I would love to visit you! I'm not fond of hurricanes.
One of the greatest movies ever made in the history of movies.
This video was really good 👍 and the movie was awesome
Interesting video,
What? He was not only trying to refute his testimony; he was using sarcasm and outright ridicule to completely obliterate every single word he said. His final "I got no more use for this guy" was aimed at the jury to completely dismiss him.
You're an excellent lawyer. I like you :)
Always always always expand on your answer when you are being cross-examined. You can easily get an attorney off the rails and pissed off and they will fuck up. Particularly a skeevy one.
This analytical clip adds to the entertainment of the movie scenes it reviews. Certainly, the magic of a movie is the value of the entertainment it offers it's audience. "My Cousin Vinny" and this sidebar analysis offer that entertainment which many other movies seem to be missing. I would love to see a similar analysis (by "America's Sheriff") of Jackie Gleason's roll in the very entertaining movie Smokey and The Bandit. Blessings, Wayne.
🤔, thanks for the video. You made me remember how much I hated paying attention in school. Keep up the good work tho. Sounds like you know your stuff
Just a note: the "creamy vs. al dente" question would have relevance as the cooking time varies between the two methods. He states he likes them regular (creamy), which would lengthen the amount of time needed to prepare them.
Great review, keep up the good work!
I always thought that too.
I think there were three options, regular, creamy (a bit more time), or al dente (a bit less time). Of course Mr. Tipton has probably never heard of "al dente" before.
That question wasn't hypothetical as much as it was rhetorical.
Also al dente takes less time to cook. A judge who knows how to cook grits would overrule your objection.
Saving that for the closing argument doesn't give the opportunity to get the witness to recant his testimony.
What's funny, "I got no more use for this guy"
What's funnier is the judges stunned reaction.
Great video. Your interpretations were excellent. You present well
Wow she this lawyer is absolutely beautiful...
I would love for your thoughts on my favorite law movie, “The Verdict “ with Paul Newman.
You should do whole movie.
My Goodness 😳..!! You look like Cybill Shepherd when she was younger,and in her Modeling Years !!
Very Good Reaction too !!
Are you sure this isn't an episode of Orphan Black?
The idea was to gain the attention of the jury sometimes we can't come up with the perfect words to please everyone it's called hunting at pecking.
This is a terrific take on the ubiquitous "Reaction" video for a few reasons. Commenters, NB: As noted in the WSJ, My Cousin Vinny ("MCV") is used at elite law schools as a teaching aid for core subjects (evidence, procedure, legal ethics). More than a dozen courts have actually cited MCV in court opinions and it has a cult following among Legal professionals, including fairly famous judges. As for this video, it's pretty cool for its instructional value - interesting tactics in objecting, why an attorney would stand where, and how arguments are presented versus how they shouldn't be. More generally, simply as a device this reaction video should be a great draw for traffic to the firm's channel. It 's also demonstrative of a firm that thinks creatively and has a real personality. Lastly we learn that the presenter is smart, skilled and experienced, yet warm, down to earth, and infinitely charming. Maybe worth getting hurt and calling across the country for advice from. Maybe. I don't know. I have a surgery coming up and if it goes sideways... Not that I'm hoping or anything. Oh yeah, this firm gets very good reviews from clients.
An error in analysis that this attorney makes in this video review of the courtroom behavior of Vinny Gambini (Joe Pesci) in the film, "My Cousin Vinny" is that attorneys in court should not ask open-ended questions of a testifying witness because the witness can go off into different areas in his or her response. But according to the late former LA District Attorney's Office prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, an open-ended question can be effective in court provided that the attorney knows what answer the witness is going to give and then asks a follow-up question or series of questions which undermines the credibility of a witness during cross-examination. Bugliosi points out in one of his published books the fallacy taught in law schools that an attorney should never ask the "Why" question of a testifying witness, and Bugliosi gave a specific example in one of his books from an actual instance in which he asked a witness in court the "Why" question regarding a witness' actions on a particular date and time in order to undermine the witness' credibility because Bugliosi knew from the witness' earlier statement(s) either in court or to the police, the witness' usual practice to go to a certain place at a particular hour. Bugliosi asked the witness if it would have been going out of his (the witness's) way to stop off at a particular place on the witness's route to a particular destination. Bugliosi was able to, in that particular case, undermine the witness' credibility because it would not have been going out of his (the witness') way to stop off at a particular place on the witness' route as was the witness' usual practice. Another error this attorney makes in her comments about this courtroom scene in the movie, "My Cousin Vinny" is that if an attorney over objects time after time during a trial that can really annoy a jury an put the overzealous objecting attorney in a bad light as far as the jury is concerned, which any good attorney would definitely not want to do! If your an attorney, you definitely do not want to get a jury pissed-off at you or your client by over objecting during a trial. Had the jury during the O.J. Simpson criminal trial been a normal jury, they would have been very irritated at Johnny Cochran and Barry Sheck's numerous, frivolous objections during Marsha Clark and Chris Darden's closing arguments which were , as Bugliosi pointed out, a deliberate attempt by the defense to not only throw off the flow of the prosecutors' closing arguments but also a deliberate attempt to thwart justice. As Bugliosi pointed out, Clark just rolled her eyes when the defense made ridiculous objections instead of doing what Bugliosi said in his book, "Outrage: The Five Reasons O.J.Simpson Got Away With Murder" that he would have done in that situation in court if the defense made frivolous objections during the prosecution's closing arguments, by asking to approach the bench and saying to Judge Ito, "the next time one of the defense attorneys makes a frivolous objection, I want you to warn them against doing so again, and if they do it again, put the objecting attorney in the holding cell. I want you to do your job your Honor. And if you don't do that, then I'm going to make my objections to their improper behavior right in front of that jury and the TV camera"! Bugliosi would also say that this attorney is wrong in that she appears to believe that a witness should be treated, as the old expression goes, "with kit gloves" as if the witness cannot be aggressively questioned by a cross-examining attorney by raising his or her voice during cross-examination! The prosecution in the Simpson criminal trial, as Bugliosi pointed out, treated forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee as if Lee is infallible! Judge Ito blundered when he told the prosecutor Hank Goldberg just before Goldberg was going to crossexamine Lee, to "just get in and get out" which clearly indicated that the judge was overly impressed with Lee's credentials and "expertise"! As Bugliosi pointed out, Lee misled the jury by indicating that there was a second set of shoe prints at the Bundy crime scene implying a possible second assailant in that case. But as Bugliosi correctly stated, the FBI expert William Bozniack testified that the second set of shoe prints were from the workman who laid the cement walkway at Nicole Brown's Bundy Drive condominium years earlier and definitely not the shoe prints of a second assailant! Bugliosi also pointed out that Lee also failed to do a test print exam on Ron Goldman's jeans and therefore failed to recognize that a pair of jeans has ridges and grooves between the fibers of the material from which the jeans are made. Bugliosi stated that had he been the prosecutor in that case, he would have criticized Lee in his closing argument saying to the jury, " How dare he (Lee) mislead you folks to believe that there is a second set of shoe prints at the Bundy crime scene indicating a possible second assailant in this case"!
The expression is “kid gloves,” meaning the softer leather gloves made from the hide of a baby goat.
@@akaLaBrujaRoja . There is also the term, "kit gloves" which are work gloves made of cloth, latex or vinyl material. Both versions of the expression can be used to mean, "to treat with caution or care". So my statement in my posted comment was correct not incorrect as you erroneously asserted.
Look I always listen to my lawyer
Lol im a lawyer and ive seen worse cross examinations in REAL court.
I have a legal question regarding the show. When Vinny has (the hostile witness) Ms DeVito on the stand, he asks her if the defense is wrong and she perks up confirming the defense is wrong. As the defense lawyer, shouldn't Vinny have asked, "Is the prosecution wrong" instead ? As defense attorney, isn't he supposed to prove the prosecution's argument wrong. ......instead of his own case of defending the two "yutes" ? Thank you.
Vinny had already realized that his theory was wrong. By putting her on the stand, he's giving her the chance to show off. It's an apology of sorts for the way he'd treated her a little earlier.
The twist is that by showing that "the defense's case [doesn't] hold water", he shows the the prosecution's case was **also** wrong -- because the car was a different make, and therefore the criminals must have been a different pair of guys.
For a more detailed reason he wanted to prove that the defense was wrong was that he argued that a second Buick skylark made the tire marks. Miss Vito proved that wrong because it couldn't have been a Buick skylark at all but instead a Pontiac Tempest that made those tracks proving that the boys were not in the car that sped off.
I believe that in this specific case, it was quicker to reveal the truth by dismantling his own theory first. He, falsifying his identity, was pressed for time. In most cases, I would say that you're right, but to almost everything, there are conditional exceptions that will cause a person to choose an unorthodox option. If both sides are wrong, it really doesn't matter which direction you choose, unless of course, you're trying to escape a Mississippi judge before he finds out you're a fraud! Then you just want the quickest route to the end!
@@kennethgoin628 Alabama judge.
I feel like I need to go to Illinois and get injured :)
The purpose of learning is not necessarily to follow what is commonly practiced. Those things are there to give one a basic foundation. A person who has enough intellectual creativity to "think outside the box", can deviate from the basics. For instance, notice that Mr. Gambini walked over to the jury because he was setting the witness up. He knew the answer to his question was going to be nonsensical and that he would be able to make an intense impression on the jury by acting as if he almost couldn't hear the answer at first, and then reacting to it with intensity.
Wouldn't him asking what kind of grits he uses be laying a foundation?
This was fun
I enjoy the differences in opinions of some of the lawyers I've seen react to this. I believe in the end, some lawyers give the character more leeway than he probably would have gotten just because they really like the movie. 😃
I disagree about the grits strategy. "How is it possible" isn't _just_ the discouraged format, it's the question with which he gets the witness to impeach himself immediately, in the moment of his testimony. Saving this epiphany until the closing? Let the unimpeached witness testimony stand all that time, solidifying itself in the jury's minds, _then_ showing it to be a foolish timeframe in the closing (where the judge and both lawyers are repeating over and over is the part of the trial that is not evidence)? Sorry, that guy's 5 minutes has to be shut down now -- later is too late.
What would have happened if Vinny told the judge the truth and said it was his first case? Can a judge prevent Vinny from working the case?
I'm pretty sure -- it's a death-penalty case. Better to get someone of proven competence than a wasting everybody's time with a trial that reaches a guilty verdict only to be ruled a mistrial on appeal.
No he wouldn't have it's the defendant who decides who his attorney Vinni isn't a state appointed attorney but the judge would probably not respect him as much and treat him different
It's covered in the movie
@@alanrickett2537 Do you mean the work of fiction that may be using dramatic license? I’m asking about real life. Can a judge refuse to let him work on the case?
@@Swalker20659 the answer in the movie is acute if you did not pass the bar in that state you have to prove you ate qualified and often have a second chair that is Now how that's done on the state on question I cannot swear to. The fa t it's his first case 8s less important then that he's had not pass the bar in the state but would still have a barring
Rockford, Illinois ........Here!
" I've done this particular action many times " English as she is spoke ?
I realize you're an attorney so you're critiquing this from a legal standpoint. However, it's pure Hollywood entertainment. And as the witness states, "No self-respecting Southerner would use instant grits." As someone who has lived in the Southern US most of her adult life, I was amused to find the Vinny character picked up on that, never having tasted grits until he talked to the man at the diner while he and Marissa Tomei's character were having breakfast. The didn't know what the heck grits are. :)
Lol I'm from romeoville. Rep Illinois!
I think that asking what type of grits he had is very relevant. You are attempting to set a timeline of events and discredit the witness. Different types of grits with or without different ingredients required different prep and cook times.
I'm not disagreeing that perhaps hypothetical questions are not part of what goes on in a courtroom, but I believe that hypothetical questions absolutely should be allowed in the course of a cross-examination. Without people that had the ability ask "what if", the world would be back in the stone age. Not only that, but sometimes it is necessary to see if doubt could be introduced into the mind of a witness, in order to break down the certainty of a major component of what the other side sees as evidence.
Will you be able to react to the court room movie The Devils advocate ?
Political correctness is bulls hit. Common sense should be used.
Do you do any work in civil right's law?
What year did you take voice and diction???
I'm disturbed that lawyers are taught, in law school, how to manipulate people 😳 on such a base level as body positioning.
I'm even more disturbed that I'm surprised by this.
I have to kind of disagree with the idea of only bringing in the point of the grits taking 20 minutes to cook vs. 5 minutes at your closing statements. I am not a lawyer, but here are my thoughts- strike the iron while it is hot! Bringing this in now, not only weakens the testimony of the witness, it also casts a bit of of a cloud over the rest of his testimony. Waiting until the end, you are relying on the memory of the jury to remember this part of his testimony, leaving the rest of his testimony still relatively unchallenged/untainted. Bringing it in now, as the Joe Pesci character did, not only changes the timeline, but also aids in casting a doubt about the rest of the testimony of this witness, thereby making it less powerful/effective (giving it less weight, to put it differently) in the jury members' minds. Just my 2c.
Interesting to see a real attorney react to a funny movie. I’d love to see you do a few courtroom clips from “A Few Good Men” or at least the Oregano scene on the ball field.
Just remember that "A Few Good Men" is a military court and has different rules and unless an attorney has experience with them they are going to be in a worse state then Vinny was. LOL
@@charlesborden8111 Yeah, I know that. I just thought it might be fun to get her viewpoint .
I don't know, dude. Not sure you can't handle the truth.
@@charlesborden8111 to an extent but All rules still have to be based on the Federal Rules of Evidence.