Picking apart 'My Cousin Vinny':

Cafe Society
1

I was thinking about posting this in ‘Cafe Society,’ but I thought it might be moved here. If this is in the wrong forum, I apologize. I just saw this movie, and I was wondering what artistic liberties the film took.

I’m sure it’s more than the average courtroom drama, (being a comedy), but I personally know nothing about this stuff. If you’ve seen the movie, and remember enough about it to nitpick, please do. Just for amusement.

I’m not sure this thread will get a lot of replies, but do what ya can if you have the time.

Thanks a lot!!

2

Cafe Society is the more appropriate place to discuss films, unless you have a specific factual question. I’ll kick this one over there.

bibliophage
moderator GQ

3

Well, for starters, there’s the whole “lights dimming” thing, when they fried the “quintessential Norton.” Pure Hollywood hokum.

Then there’s the fact that both cousin Vinny and his beautiful girlfriend could discern the presence of posi-traction in the getaway car just from looking at a picture of skid marks (and none of the original investigators could), and the idea that the real killers just happened to be driving a similar looking 60s era muscle car convertible (the same metallic green paint, no less), and just happened to resemble the innocent young men, and that virtually all the witnesses were blind, ignorant, or whose vision was impeded by dirty screens and shrubbery and trees, and the…

Well, you get the idea. But hey, it’s only a comedy. I’ve seen much more flimsier plots in serious movies. At least the move was entertaining. And Marisa Tomei was cute as hell. What more could you ask?

4

IAAL. This ruins most courtroom films and TV shows for me because they usually get things so laughably bad (and I’m not even a litigator; I’m sure it’s much worse for minty green or Sua Sponte). Matlock is easily the worst offender here.

Having said that, I’ve always liked Vinny because it throws in some correct things. Stuff like laying a proper foundation for an expert, or objecting to improper argument in the opening statement. By Hollywood standards (an admittedly low bar) it’s astoundingly accurate.

5

I thought it was humorous that cousin Vinny could just walk into any old courtroom in any old state and start practicing law.

I mean, really, who cares about such trivial matters as licensing and state bar exams when there’s a murder to be solved?

6

It’s been awhile since I’ve seen the film, but doesn’t Vinny get admitted to the court pro hac vice?

7

He was admitted pro hac vice, and that formed the basis of one of the sub-plots. He represented to the judge that he was an experienced trial attorney; on that representation, the judge permitted him to enter an appearance.

After Vinny’s… unorthodox… actions, the judge investigates the claim, and he goes through a series of aliases… Jerry Gallow, Jerry Callo, etc; ultimately, the New York judge confirms Vinny’s fictitious winning background.

  • Rick
8

Pick the movie apart all you want. Just leave Marisa Tomei to me…:wink:

9

Marisa Tomei w/ Joe Pesci?

Yeah, right.

And you can’t use a torque wrench on a water spigot without some severe mods.

10

I meant “modifications”. Not SDMB mods. Although they can put the screws to things pretty tight, so I’ve heard.

11

Hunters, gunning down innocent fawns sipping water from a cool clear brook seldom, if ever, go for a head shot.

12

I love that movie. I’ts got just the right amount of comedy, along with the drama and suspense. You really feel for the characters, and at the end it’s a real feelgood moment when the lawyer says “The state would like to dismiss all charges.” :slight_smile:

I think a lot of the stuff about southerners being simple backwater hicks is obviously embelleshed to make the movie funnier. But it’s all done for comic effect, and for me it’s in the top 10 or 20 of movies of the 90s.

13

Actually, what I like is that all the southern characters aren’t hicks. The prosecutor is by all accounts a smart, competent and ethical lawyer who treats Vinny with courtesy and respect; as you note, he moves to dismiss when he realizes he’s got the wrong guy – he isn’t a “win at all costs” sleaze. And the judge is exactly the kind of judge you’d want in a trial – a strict, no-nonsense guy who has a strong command of the law and trial procedure and who insists that the courtroom be treated with dignity and respect. Although he is irked by some of Vinny’s lack of decorum, his first priority is to run a proper trial – you never get the feeling that he’s treating Vinny unfairly, even though that “southern small town judge railroads northern city type” angle would have been very easy to work.

14

I guess I agree.

Besides, the film makes fun of both extremes.

15

I always liked the fact that Herman Munster was finally able to function normally in society.

16

“Did you say yutes?”

17

I liked that movie a lot. The only thing that could have made it better would be Marisa Tomei naked. (A guy can dream, can’t he?) I liked how Vinnie has no idea how discovery works, and hopes that he can “get a look at the prosecutor’s files”. From what I understand, they teach virtually nothing about trial procedure in law school, so maybe that’s not too far off.

18

It’s not true that law schools fail to teach trial procedure, although it’s true that it’s more of a general you-are-entitled-to rather than a specific, “Rule 4:12 allows you to move for sanctions and an order compelling if you don’t get answers to a interrogatory submitted under Rule 4:8…”

But since discovery is a matter not only of rules but of case law, it’s pretty basic. Brady v. Maryland, for example, is a seminal case - and one, I assure you, that’s taught in law school - that relates to prosecutor’s requirements to provide certain types of discovery. I’m not saying it’s unrealistic that Vinny didn’t know this – after all, he’s the good arguer who’s not a great scholar - but his law school would certainly have given him the opportunity to learn it.

All due respect to Dewey Cheatem Undhow’s characterization of the prosecutor, but the immediate move for dismissal wasn’t that realistic. After all, jeopardy had attached - who knows what sort of alibi the two other boys might have had – and even though they had a .357, there was no proof it was the murder weapon. A much more likely scenario is that he’d request an adjournment, and even offer no opposition to an unsecured bond, while they checked out the new suspects, and then offer to dismiss at a later time.

We can discuss more in-depth the ramifications of the defense remaining silent, or joining in the motion to dismiss, if you like. :slight_smile:

In any case, the wildly unorthodox tactics of Vinny should have given the prosecutor and the judge more pause than they did. Their neat-and-tidy murder case could well have derailed on appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel: the guy representing them had no trial experience whatsoever, was unfamiliar with the basic rules of discovery, and apparently didn’t even realize he was entitled to cross-examine witnesses at the preliminary hearing. (The latter might be viewed as a strategic choice; in this case, it was not).

In real life, serious inquiries would have been made prior to trial, and the judge would likely have, at a minimum, assigned local counsel as co-counsel, given that the lead attorney in a capital case was not licensed in the jurisdiction.

That said, the courtroom procedure was not as terrible as, say, Judging Amy or Matlock.

  • Rick
19

Your understanding is correct. The standard curriculum for the first year at most American law schools is: Contracts, Torts, Property, Criminal Law (1 semester), Constitutional Law (1 semester), and Civil Procedure. That last class is more about broad principles of due process than about the specifics of trying a case; you don’t learn about deadlines or discovery or motions or closing arguments or anything like that. There is usually also a pass/fail class on legal writing, part of which is writing an appellate brief and handling oral argument – but that’s a far cry from trial work.

The remaining two years are pretty much purely elective. Most law schools require a class on professional responsibility; many require a seminar class with a paper assignment rather than an exam. My particular alma mater, the University of Texas, also required a second Constitutional Law class. And that’s it.

Most students will take a class in Evidence, if for no other reason than it is part of the Multistate Bar Exam which most states include in their bar exams (the rest of the MBE reflects the first year curricula). But even that class is usually structured around substantive law (what is hearsay? does this meet a hearsay exception?) than about procedure (“here is how you introduce an exhibit”).

Non-litigators will learn just enough procedure to pass their state’s bar exam (IIRC, Vinny practiced residential real estate law). I’m a transactional lawyer; I’ve been a member of the New York bar for over three years and am studying for the Texas bar, and yet I guarantee that I would look incredibly foolish if I tried to handle a trial (at least, if I did so without an experienced hand to supervise and advise me). Maybe not quite as bad as Vinny (I do know what discovery is!), but it’d be pretty clear that trial work wasn’t my area of expertise.

20

Well, yeah, but try explaining all that on film. :slight_smile: My point wasn’t that the move was precisely realistic, just that the prosecutor wasn’t portrayed as a smallminded hick with an irrational hatred of “damn yankees.”