Yeah it's shown as an example of good lawyering, not of good judging. Based on what I hear from Legal Eagle, the most inaccurate part is that both Vinny and Trotter approach the stand without permission, without getting tackled by the bailiff or even cautioned by the judge. You're not allowed to get that close, for all sorts of procedural reasons. For example, the court doesn't want anything to pass between the lawyer and witness, unseen or unheard by the court - what if a lawyer gave a subtle unseen gesture to threaten the witness? They have to stand far apart so the whole court can see and hear the exchange.
Hey, Herman may have a history of Goofing Up from time to time………….OK all the time. But he’s got a heart of gold. Something every judge should aspire to have. I think that should could for something.
Yup! For purposes of dramatic effect, the judge made reversible error. It’s subtle, but it also implies that judges willingly make reversible error all the time. It sucks, but it happens a lot.
When I did trials, the judges often made reversible errors. If you argued the point rather than just objecting and preserving your objection, then the judge would hit you with contempt. I had one threaten me with jail when we requested a trial, which was my client’s right under the law, and he refused it. There was no legal basis for the refusal so I argued with him. He then said, “if you say but judge one more time, I’ll throw you in jail for contempt.” He later relented and we got our trial ,with a different judge. That man kept his position on the bench for years afterwards.
For me this movie is one of those that if it's on tv I have to sit down and watch it no matter how many times I see it. I love this movie and the acting by all involved is just awesome! One of my most favorite movies!
The showrunner did an interview stating that this was added in response to pressure from the studio to have a "Surprise witness" (The automotive expert). He didn't want to do it because it would be inaccurate to allow it as it was in the movie. So he added this scene with the exact objection that would normally be sustained in order to keep it SOMEWHAT realistic as well as sticking it to the studio.
Sometimes people will do this to allow an “out” in the chance they believe the outcome of the trial (based on location or makeup of the jury) will be incorrect.
I admit that, given that the charges involve homicide, the admission of the state's expert's testimony over objection might cause reversal, but, given the fact that the defense didn't request discovery, or move for a continuance, it would more likely be on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Actually, he requested a full days continuance. Also, there was discovery and it was not included as it was not available. Thus, it should not have been admissible.
If Pesci didn't request discovery initially, then he can't, in general, object to not being provided with information regarding the state's expert. But, in reality, a homicide case wouldn't go that quickly to trial anyway. And Pesci would have been removed by the court and replaced by someone who knew what he/she was doing.
In every good story, things happen that are not 'accurate'. Not due to a mistake or an oversight, but bc it makes the story better for the audience. It's fiction, not factualism. Writers try not to do that, until what is fictional is better, and then they choose that. That's why it's called fiction.
Could the judge have done this intentionally, because he believed the defendants were innocent, and would give them a chance to appeal or get the case overturned?
Except that real judges do this all the time. The fact that the judge tells Vinny that he knows he has thought out this objection, is grounds to Overrule the objections so long as he provides Vinny the same curticy when he brings forward a rebuttal witness.
SCOTUS recently made a ruling on a hypothetical case brought forth by a person with no website company and fake filings listing a heterosexual man who has been married for over 10 years as the homosexual seeking her services. Safe to say that the judicial branch is now involved in making their own laws independent of whether injury was caused.
I have yet to nor have the will power to listen to Joe Pesci playing this character rap album cd he released. I would have loved a sequel but not a rap album
Okay, this always tends to drive me nuts because the judge is NOT making a mistake here. This is a very clever trap set by the prosecutor and Vinny fell right into it. The prosecutor knew that the evidence coming in so late might prevent it from coming in, so he tipped Vinny off deliberately to make sure that he woulad have a "lucid, intelligent, WELL THOUGHT OUT objection." The nature of the objection was that he was surprised by the witness... but if he had time to think out that objection, then HE KNEW THE WITNESS WAS COMING. That's why the judge overrules the objection.
A script for the sequel to "My Cousin Vinny" was written, but when Joe Pesci and Ralph Macchio both refused to be cast, plans for the sequel were scrapped.
I don’t think this was an oversight, it is my understanding that this is a thing that happens, even if it shouldn’t.
Yeah it's shown as an example of good lawyering, not of good judging. Based on what I hear from Legal Eagle, the most inaccurate part is that both Vinny and Trotter approach the stand without permission, without getting tackled by the bailiff or even cautioned by the judge. You're not allowed to get that close, for all sorts of procedural reasons. For example, the court doesn't want anything to pass between the lawyer and witness, unseen or unheard by the court - what if a lawyer gave a subtle unseen gesture to threaten the witness? They have to stand far apart so the whole court can see and hear the exchange.
Correct in saying that this ruling may have been subject for appeal. However, even real judges make decisions that that are appealed in real courts.
I'm not a lawyer but this is the first thing I thought.
Nobody ever said Herman Munster was a good judge.
🤓
Ha…………..ha……….ha…….you’re hilarious, just kidding you idiot.
Hey, Herman may have a history of Goofing Up from time to time………….OK all the time. But he’s got a heart of gold. Something every judge should aspire to have. I think that should could for something.
He wanted the boys executed due to his belief that sometimes dead is better.
Mr. Gambini, that is a lucid, intelligent, well thought out objection.
Thank you your honor.
Overruled
Yup! For purposes of dramatic effect, the judge made reversible error. It’s subtle, but it also implies that judges willingly make reversible error all the time.
It sucks, but it happens a lot.
When I did trials, the judges often made reversible errors. If you argued the point rather than just objecting and preserving your objection, then the judge would hit you with contempt. I had one threaten me with jail when we requested a trial, which was my client’s right under the law, and he refused it. There was no legal basis for the refusal so I argued with him. He then said, “if you say but judge one more time, I’ll throw you in jail for contempt.” He later relented and we got our trial ,with a different judge. That man kept his position on the bench for years afterwards.
Sounds like a piece of a shit of a judge
Gotta love our legal system 😅
For me this movie is one of those that if it's on tv I have to sit down and watch it no matter how many times I see it. I love this movie and the acting by all involved is just awesome! One of my most favorite movies!
Crazy because they just showed my cousin Vinny in my lawschool and encouraged all of us to watch it 😂
Why would it be crazy? I heard somewhere that lawschools to illustrate proper courtroom procedures.
They say the same about legally blonde. Two of my favorite films
The showrunner did an interview stating that this was added in response to pressure from the studio to have a "Surprise witness" (The automotive expert). He didn't want to do it because it would be inaccurate to allow it as it was in the movie. So he added this scene with the exact objection that would normally be sustained in order to keep it SOMEWHAT realistic as well as sticking it to the studio.
One of my favorite movies!
How is that an "inaccuracy"? Is it impossible for a judge to make a mistake or something?
I watched it in a undergrad cj law class.
I had a friend who's a lawyer describe the film to me as "the greatest example of everything that should never happen in court"
I realized this when I first viewed the film. It's a no-brainer.
Yoots.
The last 2 videos involved the word cousin in one way or another
FRED GWYN
Sometimes people will do this to allow an “out” in the chance they believe the outcome of the trial (based on location or makeup of the jury) will be incorrect.
Remember this was after the judge found out Jerry Gallo was dead, so he thinks Vinny's a fraud
I admit that, given that the charges involve homicide, the admission of the state's expert's testimony over objection might cause reversal, but, given the fact that the defense didn't request discovery, or move for a continuance, it would more likely be on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Actually, he requested a full days continuance. Also, there was discovery and it was not included as it was not available. Thus, it should not have been admissible.
How many court room comedies are there?
The only ones I know of are this movie and "Liar Liar".
I watched it in school.
If Pesci didn't request discovery initially, then he can't, in general, object to not being provided with information regarding the state's expert. But, in reality, a homicide case wouldn't go that quickly to trial anyway. And Pesci would have been removed by the court and replaced by someone who knew what he/she was doing.
Like Stan's Public Defender 😂
Correct
In every good story, things happen that are not 'accurate'. Not due to a mistake or an oversight, but bc it makes the story better for the audience. It's fiction, not factualism. Writers try not to do that, until what is fictional is better, and then they choose that. That's why it's called fiction.
I don't care about the lawyer...i love Marisa ❤❤❤❤
It's not Holler...its Haller....
Could the judge have done this intentionally, because he believed the defendants were innocent, and would give them a chance to appeal or get the case overturned?
Except that real judges do this all the time. The fact that the judge tells Vinny that he knows he has thought out this objection, is grounds to Overrule the objections so long as he provides Vinny the same curticy when he brings forward a rebuttal witness.
That would be a mistake that you would want your students to know about, wouldn't it? It would be a useful mistake.
Why do you say it this way? Judges make mistakes.
SCOTUS recently made a ruling on a hypothetical case brought forth by a person with no website company and fake filings listing a heterosexual man who has been married for over 10 years as the homosexual seeking her services. Safe to say that the judicial branch is now involved in making their own laws independent of whether injury was caused.
I have yet to nor have the will power to listen to Joe Pesci playing this character rap album cd he released. I would have loved a sequel but not a rap album
“It’s a lovely day in the neighborhood, for a driiive byyye”
🤦♂️
Okay, this always tends to drive me nuts because the judge is NOT making a mistake here. This is a very clever trap set by the prosecutor and Vinny fell right into it. The prosecutor knew that the evidence coming in so late might prevent it from coming in, so he tipped Vinny off deliberately to make sure that he woulad have a "lucid, intelligent, WELL THOUGHT OUT objection." The nature of the objection was that he was surprised by the witness... but if he had time to think out that objection, then HE KNEW THE WITNESS WAS COMING. That's why the judge overrules the objection.
Exactly. All the Judge had to do was to Overrule Trotter's objection to Vinnie's rebutal expert witnesses and that's what real judges do quite often.
A script for the sequel to "My Cousin Vinny" was written, but when Joe Pesci and Ralph Macchio both refused to be cast, plans for the sequel were scrapped.