Headscratchers / My Cousin Vinny

• Regarding the clip of the movie where Mona is being questioned by the prosecutor. Vinny says that Mona's expertise is in "general automotive knowledge, and it's in this area that her testimony will be applicable." He then encourages the prosecution to test that if he wishes. The prosecutor then tests her GENERAL knowledge by asking about the specific start time of a specific make, model, and year of car. When she is unable to answer this one specific question he immediately moves to have her testimony made inadmissible as an expert. The fact that she then schools him by pointing out it's a trick question (as the car was never made in the specified year) and makes him look like a fool doesn't negate the fact that he asked her a question outside of her advertised level of knowledge. Even if she actually did have no knowledge of the fact it was a trick question it shouldn't matter, because he's asking a very narrowly focused question to someone who was introduced for "general" expertise. Was the prosecutor in the wrong here, or is it just me?
  • When Vinny says "general automotive knowledge", he's essentially saying that doesn't have specific training in a specific field of automotive knowledge in the same way as Trotter's expert witness (a forensic investigator). By asking the very specific trick question, he is testing how good her actual general knowledge is. It'd be along the same lines as comparing a trivia champion to a Ph.D.
  • It is also the kind of knowledge a mechanic might be expected to have; Trotter's essentially asking her something that a mechanic might need to know if they were dealing with ignition problems on that make and model of car (if it existed). Plus, Trotter's basically looking for any reason to get Lisa off the stand.
• So what if they discover Vinny wasn't really Jerry Callo? Will there have to be another trial?
  • Yes. An attorney faking his credentials is definitely grounds for a retrial, and for Vinny to go to prison.
  • No. First off, Vinny made it quite clear to both Stan and Bill exactly what his experience level was. He told them in the prison interview room that it was both his first time at trial and that all his experience was in personal injury cases. Stan even dumped the public defender for Vinny. If he had lied to them instead of just the judge, and had been convicted, they would have a decent appeal chance based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Second, the boys were quite obviously proven innocent. To retry them would mean the state couldn't try the actual killers who had just been arrested in Georgia. Try explaining that to the obviously convinced judge or the people whom knew the victim in a small town. The DA would be run out on rails.
    • The state can't retry the case. Since the case was dismissed after the jury had been empaneled, the case is therefore dismissed "with prejudice", meaning it can't be retried without double jeopardy applying.
  • 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 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.
• Okay... after Bill places his phone call to his mother and they get ahold of Vinny, we have something of a Gilligan Cut where Vinny and Lisa are driving into town, and after their arrival, we cut to Bill and Stan being taken into their cell. Now, I'm not entirely sure how long the process of Bill and Stan being transported to prison from the police station would be, but I'm assuming it would have taken at least several minutes. Again, Vinny and Lisa drove into town around this time... so, unless it was just a series of quick cuts, are we to assume that Vinny and Lisa were able to drive all the way down to Alabama from New York in only a matter of minutes?
  • It depends on how long they were kept at the sheriff's office before being transported to the jail. If they were arrested over a weekend, they could have been kept in the holding cell until Monday. It's very common, as most government agencies aren't staffed as heavily on weekends. At a medium pace, it takes about 16 hours to drive from Brooklyn to Montgomery (about the center of Alabama). It could easily be done overnight or in a day, especially with two people who could drive.
  • Also, montages by their very nature tend to play tricks with time a little bit. We're not necessarily supposed to think that both events are happening at exactly the same time, they're just intercut together to show how the characters got to the point where their narratives eventually intersect rather than showing them as separate scenes/montages.
• Much fun is had about Vinny's quest to trick the Judge into thinking he's qualified to try this case, and is he able to successfully dupe him into it which is treated as a happy moment at the end... but isn't the fact of the matter that Vinny simply isn't qualified? Isn't he putting his cousin's life in danger by insisting he defend him, especially at the beginning when he was doing such a poor job? Sure, the public defender turned out to suck but couldn't they have just hired a... regular defense attorney? With experience? It's entirely possible, even probable, that through the ordinary research and due diligence a regular law firm would perform they'd also have caught all the details that eventually exonerated Bill and Stan, maybe even right away at the hearing. And why is Judge Malloy, touching though his faith in Vinny is, so willing to lie to a judge about Vinny's qualifications on a case where two lives hang in the balance?
  • They go over this when Billy first makes the call: They can't afford the price of a defense attorney. That's why they go with Vinny in the first place. Judge Malloy lies about it because he likes Vinny and doesn't want him to go to jail.
  • Judge Malloy probably also simply has faith that Vinny, although inexperienced, has enough ability to see the case through. Everyone has to have a first time, after all. And given the events of the movie, clearly Malloy's faith in Vinny is justified.
    • 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.
  • 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.
    • 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.
    • This one's just basic Rule of Drama: 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.
    • 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.
• A small quibble, but couldn't Vinny have used the states automotive expert to verify that there was no way the defendants' car had made the tire marks from the getaway car? Granted I'm no legal expert and maybe this falls under the category of leading question but the guy was as least as qualified as Mona about general automotive knowledge...
  • How do you, or Vinnie, know that? Vinny knew for a fact that Lisa would know it, and since lives were literally at stake, you go with what you know rather than what you suspect.
    • Very worst case the states expert doesn't catch it, he calls her and then she catches on. it's like a free reroll, with the added bonus of making the states expert's earlier testimony that much more dubious.
    • He hoped that Lisa knew that, he had no time to coach her beforehand and once she went up on the stand it took her a few moments to realize what the photo was revealing.
    • Remember that the only reason that Lisa didn't pick up on it quicker is that she was in a snit with Vinny at the time and was actively being difficult. Note that when she finally deigns to take a good look at the picture, she instantly sees what it means and picks up on where Vinny is going. Vinny knows her well enough to know that she will instantly spot what's going on.
    • It's risky, yes, but if Vinny tried something with the government guy, Trotter might easily have objected that he was leading the witness, and the judge would've sided with Trotter. Vinny knows how well Lisa knows cars, because they presumably worked together in her father's garage. It takes her a moment to see it, but only because she's pissed at him and not really looking at the photo. The moment she actually looks critically at it, she realizes exactly what he did without any coaching whatsoever. Remember, these are two people who've been together a long time. They really know each other.
    • 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.
    • Just to clarify, this is right because Vinny dismissed the government guy with no cross-examination before realizing the tire tracks proved it wasn't the boys' car. So if he recalled the witness, it would be as a direct witness, not a cross-examination, and leading questions wouldn't be permitted.
    • The Government guy might not have been able to go into as much detail about the car driven by the actual criminals as Lisa, but asking if the tire tracks came from a car with positive differential and independent rear suspension and then pointing out that the defendants car lacked both is perfectly valid legal procedure, especially after Trotter agreed that the tracks were made by the getaway car.
    • Not to mention that there is no evidence that Wilbur would have even known these things. He's not some hyper-interested car trivia guru like Lisa and her family. He's essentially a professor, teaching forensic auto studies to FBI agents. The only things he did was check the tires of the car against the tire tracks. Once Lisa explained, he knew enough to confirm what she said.
    • The other thing to consider is that Lisa has been asking, pleading, and demanding to help Vinny win the case in some way throughout the whole movie, and he's rebuffed her for one reason or another. Bringing her in as a witness is Vinny trying to make up for that and give her the chance to really help him.
    • Any defense lawyer will tell you that if you have the choice between a friendly expert witness and an expert witness for the prosecution, pick the friendly witness. A friendly witness has an interest in working with you. Even if Vinny hadn't dismissed the state's automotive expert without cross-examining him, Lisa knows how Vinny thinks and could pick up on what he was trying to point out without him having to spell it out.
    • It should also be noted that the evidence he uses are pictures Lisa took which show the tire marks on the curb, I believe that the validity of the evidence would be brought into question if the photographer wasn't present.
• Is the talk about cars accurate? Or did they make it up? The legal procedures are noted for their accuracy.
  • Yes, actually. While the tilt from a solid rear axle would not be quite so dramatic (the tire track for the tiled tire would be only slightly smaller due to the weight of the car pushing down), it would be a noticeably different track. As well, the positraction angle is entirely correct. One of the tires would have been dragged along rather than spinning and not only would the track be smeared and less identifiable, but the tire tracks would be curved instead of perfectly straight. Under the circumstances described in the film, the straight, level, and clear tracks seen in the film would have been impossible to make with Bill's car.
    • The addendum of "in the 60's, there were only two other cars made in America [with the following tech specs]" is arguable, but the main point- the defendants car would be unable to make the tire marks in question (while a very similar looking car WOULD) - is well established.
• Would Vinny even be allowed to practice law outside of the state of New York?
  • If he's working with a lawyer who is licensed to practice law in Alabama, likely.
  • Out-of-state lawyers can practice individual cases at the discretion of the presiding judge, which is precisely where the conflict between Vinny and the judge comes from: Vinny falsified his experience because he knew that the judge wouldn't have let him work the case if he told the truth.
  • 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.
• It makes sense that Lisa would see the discrepancy in the tire tracks, but how did Vinny? He doesn't know nearly as much about cars as she does, and he clearly spotted it before her. He hears the locals talk about "mud in your tires", but that's about as far as it goes; I don't even remember the word "positraction" being used before the climactic scene with Lisa on the stand.
  • Vinny does know almost as much as Mona does (and therefore figured everything out), but, as the lawyer, he couldn't testify as an expert. He had to put Mona on the stand as the defense expert witness.
  • Vinny mentions that he worked as a mechanic for Lisa's father. And with a fiancée like her, he's likely been picking knowledge up as well.
• Wouldn't the sheriff have to tell the boys what they were being charged with before interviewing them?
  • Hollywood Law. Or it could be that the small town cops simply assumed that the boys already knew since they were confessing, and that spelling it out, while legally necessary, wasn't that big a deal.
  • The minute the sheriff walked into the room, Vinny's cousin was already talking about how he wanted to confess or sign whatever he had to in order to make it easier. There's no "official" law that says that a cop has to tell you what you're being arrested for, although it's certainly good procedure. That's a near direct quote from the Supreme Court in Devenpeck v. Alford.
  • 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
  • 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, it's a great demonstration of why you should NEVER take anything for granted in the legal system.
• If Vinny knew about the two other yutes, matching the boys' description, and in an almost identical car, who were arrested while carrying a gun of the right caliber, why didn't he bring that up as soon as he knew? Wouldn't that alone have instilled reasonable doubt?
  • Vinny only suspects that there are two other yutes once he has his Eureka moment. And he needs the sheriff to agree to get the evidence for him. And he only has this evidence after Mona Lisa's testimony when the sheriff returns. Vinny reveals his evidence of the true culprits pretty much the moment he receives it.
    • Specifically, the defense's case was always to create a reasonable doubt with the claim that a second pair of yutes entered the Sack o' Suds, which is why Vinny's cross-examination of the witnesses was to discredit their identification of the defendants specifically when exiting (the first only saw the actual killers leaving, while the other two had visual obstructions in the form of dirty windows, trees, and bushes or an out-of-date prescription on her glasses). It wasn't until he had his Eureka moment that he knew exactly how to prove this - by getting the sheriff to check for any Pontiac Tempests reported stolen or abandoned (assuming that they had not found any stolen or abandoned Buick Skylarks).
  • Plus, an attorney changing the theory he's arguing would look a lot like desperation to a jury, and make them think he's flailing because he's realized his main theory of defense is untenable. Having Lisa and the sheriff come up and take the stand to present evidence and testimony clears him of that doubt.
• Would the photos that Mona Lisa took at the crime scene be admissible as evidence? How would they know the pictures hadn't been doctored in any way? Moreover why were the tire track in her photos apparently different than the tire marks in the official crime scene photos?
  • 1) Trotter has the opportunity to object to the pictures being introduced as evidence and 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.
  • Lisa's photo is also taken from farther back — the prosecution's photo didn't show where it goes up on the curb.
  • 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 a professional, expert or 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.
• Lisa's attitude near the end of the film puzzles me. Is getting married more important than saving 2 innocent kids? It seems rather selfish to think about her "biological clock", and walk out of the court room when 2 people's lives are at stake. She and Vinny are in the middle of a terrible situation where 2 people could be facing the electric chair if found guilty.
  • Lisa doesn't walk out because of her "biological clock" or wanting to get married. She walks out because Vinny exploded at her and was acting like a jerk, both denying that she could help him and them viciously mocking her over her attempts to help. And when she walked out, she had no idea about Vinny's plan to have her help win the case, because Vinny didn't know about the plan yet.
  • 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 a specific amount of grovelling and fawning apology that she deemed suitable); it's just that Vinny has his "Eureka!" Moment and needs to drag her back well before she's had time to get over her anger with him.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • And don't forget that her biological clock is ticking [stomp] like [stomp] this! [stomp]
  • 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. And afterwards, when she's getting dragged into the courtroom, she's got a head full of steam and is being deliberately difficult, so it doesn't fully click what Vinny's really up to and that she's actually in a position to help until she's on the stand and has a good look at the photograph.
• Is it legal for the Judge to overrule Vinny's objection to the prosecution's expert witness? As far as I am aware everything he said when he objected is accurate and valid as a complaint and the Judge doesn't give a reason for overruling it.
  • It is a grey area, in a courtroom judges have huge amounts of discretion on what they allow and disallow. If Vinny had lost the case, it could certainly have formed part of the appeal. However given the preponderance of other evidence, including one of the defendants' own admission "I shot the clerk", the disputing of what appears to be a minor technical detail about the form of getaway car may not have been deemed sufficient to affect the verdict; especially since Vinny introduced his own expert testimony in response (which was the key to turning the case around for him). The answer to pretty much most legal disputes is "it depends" and "don't annoy the judge".
  • 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.
• "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?
  • 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.
• 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?
  • 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.
• 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.

---