Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Headscratchers / MyCousinVinny

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* Director's DVD commentary mentions this trope by name to point out that Bill's ''Italian American'' mother is conspicuously absent throughout the trial. Scenes were shot to explain this away by having her suffer a heart attack -- which is referenced when Bill mentions her health isn't so good right now -- but they detracted from the film's momentum and were cut. Reportedly, screening audiences never noticed.
* Stan automatically assumes that when a man he's never seen before is let into the cell and begins talking about how he can help them, that it's anal rape time; and he never notices that the guy he presumes is "Bubba" is not speaking like everyone else they've met, but has a Brooklyn accent you could cut with a knife.
** Of course, Stan is terrified and not thinking straight. Also, it's plausible for an Alabama prison to have a couple prisoners from out of state. Stan ''himself'' is a prisoner from out of state.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Also, in total fairness, Lisa storms off ''before'' Vinny realises she can testify on the stand. So far as she's concerned, she's not in a position to help so isn't leaving anyone in the lurch. When she's getting dragged into the courtroom, she's got a head full of steam, is being deliberately difficult, and presumably thinks Vinny's just getting up to some desperate antics, so it doesn't fully click what Vinny's really thinking until she has a good look at the photograph.

to:

** Also, in total fairness, Lisa initially storms off ''before'' Vinny realises she can testify on the stand. So far as she's concerned, she's not in a position to help so isn't leaving anyone in the lurch. When And afterwards, when she's getting dragged into the courtroom, she's got a head full of steam, steam and is being deliberately difficult, and presumably thinks Vinny's just getting up to some desperate antics, so it doesn't fully click what Vinny's really thinking up to and that she's actually in a position to help until she she's on the stand and has a good look at the photograph.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Also, in total fairness, Lisa storms off ''before'' Vinny realises she can testify on the stand. So far as she's concerned, she's not in a position to help so isn't leaving anyone in the lurch.

to:

** Also, in total fairness, Lisa storms off ''before'' Vinny realises she can testify on the stand. So far as she's concerned, she's not in a position to help so isn't leaving anyone in the lurch. When she's getting dragged into the courtroom, she's got a head full of steam, is being deliberately difficult, and presumably thinks Vinny's just getting up to some desperate antics, so it doesn't fully click what Vinny's really thinking until she has a good look at the photograph.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Also, in total fairness, Lisa storms off ''before'' Vinny realises she can testify on the stand. So far as she's concerned, she's not in a position to help so isn't leaving anyone in the lurch.

Added: 621

Changed: 44

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The scene is a perfect representation of a fundamental truth of the legal system: '''''never''''' talk to cops without a lawyer present. Even if you are pro-cop. Even -- especially -- if you are innocent. Even -- especially -- if it's a legitimate misunderstanding. Those words in Miranda, "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"? They ''really'' mean that. So you need to take those other words -- "you have the right to remain silent" and "you have the right to an attorney" -- equally seriously



** The defense has the right to submit anything it wants (that it thinks will help its case) into evidence, including photos taken by someone who isn't an expert or investigator, as long as the prosecution doesn't object on reasonable grounds that the evidence in question shouldn't be entered. As noted above, if Trotter thought that there was any reasonable chance that Vinny was submitting doctored or faked photos, he had every right to object to their submission. Since he didn't, it was permissible for them to be included as evidence.

to:

** The defense has the right to submit anything it wants (that it thinks will help its case) into evidence, including photos taken or testimony by someone who isn't an a professional, expert or investigator, investigator within that field, as long as the prosecution doesn't object on reasonable grounds that the evidence in question shouldn't be entered. As noted above, if Trotter thought that there was any reasonable chance that Vinny was submitting doctored or faked photos, he had every right to object to their submission. Since he didn't, it was permissible for them to be included as evidence.


Added DiffLines:

** And don't forget that her biological clock is ticking [stomp] like [stomp] this! [stomp]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** Vinny wasn't honest because if he was, there is no way the judge would have approved him for ''pro hac vice'' status in this case. This is a case of capital murder, it requires the highest level of training and experience, without which any conviction could easily be overturned on appeal. If the judge approved someone who took six tries to pass the bar, had only been in practice for six weeks, only worked personal injury tort cases, and had never actually gone to trial yet, it would definitely be seen as a reversible error on appeal, as it would look like the judge was intentionally sabotaging the defendants' case by sandbagging them with an ambulance chaser.


Added DiffLines:

** Lisa has also just had enough by this point. She and Vinny have been together for over ten years by this point and he hasn't married her yet and she's worried it will never happen. Especially since her niece is now engaged and she is still unwed.


Added DiffLines:

** In a larger area, they might. But this is a very rural town in a very rural county in the South. It's probably difficult to get people to even apply for the job of public defender so they take what they can get. In this case, someone woefully unprepared for a capital murder case and nervous about it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* Would the court not have some accommodation for someone speaking in trial with a significant stammer; I mean, maybe not for the public defender who thinks his stammer is smaller than it actually is, but in general?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The legal terminology is ''pro hac vice'', and it's determined by the judge on a quite literal case-by-case basis.

to:

** The legal terminology is ''pro hac vice'', and it's determined by the judge on a quite literal case-by-case basis. Pro hac vice means "for this occasion", and it permits an out-of-state attorney to appear before a court for the purposes of a single case. In real life, it also requires that there be an lawyer who ''is'' from that state as part of the out-of-state lawyer's team, to advise and assist on points of procedure and other points of law specific to the jurisdiction, but if this happened then Vinny wouldn't get himself in nearly so much trouble, cutting down on both the comedy and the drama. So they skip that bit.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Trials only happen if prosecutors ''make'' them happen. Even if the DA had the legal power to bring charges again, why would he? The boys are clearly innocent, and he knows it, and he's not some sort of villain who knowingly prosecutes innocent people. (Nor does he like to knowingly defend guilty people, as he mentions at one point). The real question is weather Vinny himself might be charged with fraud or something, assuming they discover the lie. But even then, I think the DA would be willing to give him a pass.

to:

** Trials only happen if prosecutors ''make'' them happen. Even if the DA had the legal power to bring charges again, why would he? The boys are clearly innocent, and he knows it, and he's not some sort of villain who knowingly prosecutes innocent people. (Nor does he like to knowingly defend guilty people, as he mentions at one point). The real question is weather whether Vinny himself might be charged with fraud or something, assuming they discover the lie. But even then, I think the DA would be willing to give him a pass.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** I don't think it's just a matter of ego. When Vinny improvises the "Jerry Gallo" claim, at that point he's gotten nothing but hostility and derision from the judge, including being thrown in the slammer multiple times, being dressed down in front of the entire court, and even being attacked for his attire. He has good reason to doubt the judge would be of a generous spirit if he told the truth.

Added: 1010

Changed: 424

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** 1) Trotter has the opportunity to object to the pictures being introduced as evidence and didn't. 2) It's not that they were that different (though it seems they were taken from the opposite direction of the prosecution's), it's that Vinny had them right in front of him when the idea of the Tempest occurred to him.

to:

** 1) Trotter has the opportunity to object to the pictures being introduced as evidence and didn't.raises no objections; Vinny describes what the photograph is of and who took it, and specifically asks Trotter "we can agree on this?"; Trotter accepts the photograph as presented, and Vinny can thus enter it as an exhibit (and does so). Also note that since the photographer herself is being called as a witness, if Trotter ''wanted'' to, he could question her on cross about the photograph and the circumstances of her taking it. 2) It's not that they were that different (though it seems they were taken from the opposite direction of the prosecution's), it's that Vinny had them right in front of him when the idea of the Tempest occurred to him.


Added DiffLines:

** It's very likely correct. Assuming Trotter is being completely truthful about only just receiving the evidence (and there's no reason to suppose he's not), he can disclose it, ask to introduce it, and most Judges would likely let him go ahead (Court time is expensive, a Jury has already been impanelled, and the case has local notoriety - all reasons to proceed swiftly). Since the evidence is technical in nature, Vinny's request for a continuance to study it would ''also'' likely be granted (if Vinny hadn't pissed off the Judge enough to get repeatedly cited for contempt). In Real Life, there ''would'' likely be a continuance to allow Vinny to prepare, albeit not a very long one, since the prosecution can argue that (due to his senior position) George Wilbur shouldn't be kept hanging around waiting to testify for too long, and an automotive expert for the defense can presumably be found relatively quickly. But having a few days to come up with the answer wouldn't be as dramatically satisfying.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* "I just got it myself. I'll disclose it first thing in the morning. Judge gonna have to admit it." - is that a correct statement from the legal standpoint? And should this fact have influenced the judge's ruling on Vinny's objection to the witness and his request for more time?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** What's more, by the time Judge Malloy was informed of the situation - which couldn't have been too early into the proceedings since "Jerry Callo" with "C" was a very late invention - it was not just blind faith but could actually be supported by Vinny's shrewdness in dealing with the case.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Strictly speaking, no it's not illegal. But it would have allowed the defense to make an appeal on the grounds that the judge unfairly stacked the deck against the defendant and have the verdict thrown out.

Added: 636

Changed: 9

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** This one's just basic RuleOfDrama: fiction hinges on conflict, and resolving the narrative this way removes a key source of conflict. If the situation between Vinny and the Judge over his (lack of) credentials is brushed away one way or the other this easily (by Vinny coming clean and the judge either allowing him to proceed or, more likely, kicking him off the case), there's no tension (will the judge find out about Vinny's lack of credentials?), thus no conflict (can Vinny keep the judge from finding out about his lack of credentials, thus kicking him off the case / throwing him in jail?), thus no drama. Ergo, Vinny lies.



** Literally the first question the Sheriff asked Bill on walking into the room was 'Do you know why you are here?', and Bill told him that he did and wanted to confess and make it as painless as possible. The Sheriff thinks he's confessing to the murder, its a great demonstration of why you should NEVER take anything for granted in the legal system.

to:

** Literally the first question the Sheriff asked Bill on walking into the room was 'Do you know why you are here?', and Bill told him that he did and wanted to confess and make it as painless as possible. The Sheriff thinks he's confessing to the murder, its it's a great demonstration of why you should NEVER take anything for granted in the legal system.



** Also, she's just had a major blowout with her fiancé. She's not a doormat, her feelings are hurt and she's in a huff. Those aren't the best emotional circumstances to consider the wider picture, or indeed anything much wider than how you'd like to put your fist through the face of the person who pissed you off, and case or no case she's entirely justified in feeling that way. Chances are, had she had a chance to go elsewhere and some time to cool down, she'd have probably realized herself that Vinny was just lashing out due to frustration and guilt and didn't really mean what he'd said, and returned of her own volition (or at least been willing to allow Vinny to drag her back after an amount of grovelling and fawning apology that she deemed suitable); it's just that Vinny has his EurekaMoment and needs to drag her back well before she's had time to get over her anger with him.

to:

** Also, she's just had a major blowout with her fiancé. She's not a doormat, her feelings are hurt and she's in a huff. Those aren't the best emotional circumstances to consider the wider picture, or indeed anything much wider than how you'd like to put your fist through the face of the person who pissed you off, and case or no case she's entirely justified in feeling that way. Chances are, had she had a chance to go elsewhere and some time to cool down, she'd have probably realized herself that Vinny was just lashing out due to frustration and guilt and didn't really mean what he'd said, and returned of her own volition (or at least been willing to allow Vinny to drag her back after an a specific amount of grovelling and fawning apology that she deemed suitable); it's just that Vinny has his EurekaMoment and needs to drag her back well before she's had time to get over her anger with him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

****You can lead on cross-examination, so that wouldn’t have been a problem. But the first rule of cross is “only ask a question if you know the answer.” Vinny couldn’t guarantee that the state’s expert had the knowledge, or would be truthful about it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** The better headscratcher would be "why wasn't Vinny just honest with the judge, saying 'look, your honor, I just graduated, and I'm trained in injury law. Honestly, I'm not the criminal lawyer the boys need. But neither they, nor their families can afford the one they need, and I'm family, so I'm here as a favor, as someone who has any training at all in the law, to help out my cousin. Could you please approve me so that I can help my cousin?'" And the answer is, basically, he's not the kind of person to humble himself like that, and thinks that he ''has'' to lie and make the judge think that he's fully able and ready to represent a criminal case. And maybe that's true, maybe the judge would have said "no, I'm not letting you use this as your learning opportunity." Honestly, that does seem in character for the judge, but we don't know for certain one way or the other.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Literally the first question the Sheriff asked Bill on walking into the room was 'Do you know why you are here?', and Bill told him that he did and wanted to confess and make it as painless as possible. The Sheriff thinks he's confessing to the murder, its a great demonstration of why you should NEVER take anything for granted in the legal system.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Forgot which judge was Malloy


** Judge Malloy ''doesn't'' lie about Vinny's qualifications. Where did you get that idea? ''Vinny'' lied to the judge, and the judge was fooled. At first he takes Vinny at his word, but double-checks the records and finds that Vinny lied. So Vinny lies again, saying that his legal name is Jerry Gallow and his records are under that name. The judge believes that at first but double-checks again and discovers that Jerry Gallow is dead. So Vinny lies a ''third'' time, saying that the judge misheard him and his real name is "Jerry Callow", with a "C". The judge is ''very'' suspicious at this point and double-checks immediately. In the meantime, Mona calls in a favor from Vinny's mentor in New York to drum up some false records to confirm Vinny's lies. It works like a charm, and the judge is completely convinced that Vinny is legally "Jerry Callow" and he has an excellent trial record.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Judge Malloy ''doesn't'' lie about Vinny's qualifications. Where did you get that idea? ''Vinny'' lied to the judge, and the judge was fooled. At first he takes Vinny at his word, but double-checks the records and finds that Vinny lied. So Vinny lies again, saying that his legal name is Jerry Gallow and his records are under that name. The judge believes that at first but double-checks again and discovers that Jerry Gallow is dead. So Vinny lies a ''third'' time, saying that the judge misheard him and his real name is "Jerry Callow", with a "C". The judge is ''very'' suspicious at this point and double-checks immediately. In the meantime, Mona calls in a favor from Vinny's mentor in New York to drum up some false records to confirm Vinny's lies. It works like a charge, and the judge is completely convinced that Vinny is legally "Jerry Callow" and he has an excellent trial record.

to:

** Judge Malloy ''doesn't'' lie about Vinny's qualifications. Where did you get that idea? ''Vinny'' lied to the judge, and the judge was fooled. At first he takes Vinny at his word, but double-checks the records and finds that Vinny lied. So Vinny lies again, saying that his legal name is Jerry Gallow and his records are under that name. The judge believes that at first but double-checks again and discovers that Jerry Gallow is dead. So Vinny lies a ''third'' time, saying that the judge misheard him and his real name is "Jerry Callow", with a "C". The judge is ''very'' suspicious at this point and double-checks immediately. In the meantime, Mona calls in a favor from Vinny's mentor in New York to drum up some false records to confirm Vinny's lies. It works like a charge, charm, and the judge is completely convinced that Vinny is legally "Jerry Callow" and he has an excellent trial record.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** She wants to help the innocent kids, but at the moment she doesn't know how to help and Vinny won't even ''allow'' her to help. It's not till she's on the stand that she suddenly realizes she has a way to help the kids.

Top