I was flipping channels last night, and ended up watching the last half of My Cousin Vinny.
There was a scene where Vinny objected to prosecution’s introduction of the expert FBI witness without giving the defense adequate notice. Vinny asked to approach the bench and voiced his objection. The judge noted that the objection was “a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection,” then promptly overruled him.
[ol]
[li]What is the point of the judge noting that the objection is “lucid, intelligent, and well thought-out” only to overrule it?[/li][li]I presume that judges are not supposed to act capriciously. Does the judge not fear that he will be accused of this on appeal?[/li][li]My key question: Vinny made the objection after approaching the bench. Is his objection part of the trial record? Is the judge’s apparently capricious overruling of the objection part of the trial record?[/ol][/li]Thanks!
Your instincts are correct - in the real world, this objection absolutely would have been sustained. The judge here made an error of law, which would indeed probably lead the appeals court to order a re-trial.
As for why the writers had the judge praise this objection before over-ruling it - partly, I think it’s just that this is one of the (relatively rare) bits of the movie where the needs of funny trumped technical accuracy. But beyond that, it does illustrate a broader point accurately: that legal advocacy involves the presentation of “lucid, intelligent, well-thought” arguments that may nonetheless not prevail.
I think the judge said that the objection was lucid, intelligent and well thought-out because that was unusual for Vinny. Previously he hadn’t displayed any familiarity with trial procedure.
Earlier in the movie, Vinny doesn’t know anything about court procedures and keeps getting in trouble for it. He tells Mona Lisa that you don’t get that in law school, you pick it up after you pass the bar. He finally read and comprehended the court procedures and was willing to follow the rules. The dialog sounds like he is quoting a book on trial procedures. Then the judge shoots him down. Funny happens.
Indeed, he decided to raise the objection after Mona Lisa had become an expert on disclosure, by actually reading the Alabama Criminal Procedure book that the judge gave Vinny.
I have seen judges be a lot more droll with Counsel than that.
On the overruling, I would say that I am not knowledgeable about Alabama Court procedure and rules of evidence, but at least in my jurisdiction the Court could have properly permitted the expert to testify, after granting the Defence an adjournment of several days to prepare themselves.
IANAL, but, to me, logical, well thought out, and lucid don’t have anything to do with whether or not it’s relevant, or would apply at the time. Don’t know about the legal junk, tho.
I remember seeing one tell counsel that his tie was the ugliest one she had ever seen, and to please never ever wear it again in her courtroom.
Anyway, to the question, yes, it was a logical objection to make and should have been sustained, and yes, it would be appealable. Yes, it should have been part of the trial record. And yes, it was an “lucid, intelligent, and well thought-out” argument, the first such one by the character.
Within the context of the movie, the purpose of the scene is to demonstrate that Vinny is in fact not the idiot he first seems to be, and is learning. The judge’s comment that the objection was reasonable - even though he overrules it - serves to confirm to the audience that Vinny’s objection is not merely bafflegab but in fact demonstrates that he knows something, and has impressed the judge.
Without this scene, the later scenes of Vinny pounding the prosecution’s case into hamburger would come out of left field; one minute he’s a fool, and then suddenly he wins? Wouldn’t work. This scene shows him growing towards victory.
Legally, it absolutely would be cause for appeal and it’s unlikely a judge would not have at least called counsel into his chambers to find out what the hell the prosecution was doing, but that takes a backseat here to the needs of the story. And anyway it ends up not mattering.
He probably could have requested and gotten a continuance, but that would have given the judge enough time to find out that he was lying about who he was and his history.
Do “rebuttal witnesses” brought forth by the prosecution need to be announced to the Defence well before hand?
Was the subject matter expert a rebuttal witness?
(If the answers to the above questions are “No” & “Yes”, respectively, than possibly that is a valid reason to overrule the lucid, intelligent, and well thought out objection.)
That’s a good point. The movie would have been awesome if Vinny had not contested the witness and then later, when his chick questioned him about it, he’d cite this as his reasoning.
Also remember that the Judge thinks Vinny is a total charlatan not even legally able to try a case at this point and he’s only waiting for confirmation of that by fax before having him arrested anyway, in which case the two utes would have to be retried anyway, so he’s a bit less servile to procedure than usual.
I just want to say that I love that movie. And Fred Gwynne did a great job as the Judge Haller. If the judge and Sheriff Farley hadn’t been reasonable people, it would have been a much less satisfying movie.