My Cousin Vinny: Compare and Contrast
In the movie “My Cousin Vinny” the theme was that it happened to be the first case for Vinny. He was to defend his cousin. Not like the real life action where in order to pass the Bar exam you really have to know all aspects of being a lawyer. This fictional story did have some facts in it, but it did show some possible thing that could happen in real life. In a lot of instances the happenings were a little too far-fetched to be believed.
The movie did not really go into much of the activities before the pretrial. The action really happened with the court drama. There are several points that are in the movie that are more for show than for true effects. In the pretrial the Judge went a little
…show more content…
over board in the procedure aspect.
The judge was more interested in making the character of Vinny look bad. Vinny was not ready to appear in front of a judge of any kind. There are judges out there that probably do hold lawyers to a very high standard. It did seem a little extreme in the movie. The judge should have spoken with the defendants to make them aware of the lack of qualifications of their lawyer Vinny seemed to have. A real Judge would have tried to make it clear to the Defendants about the inability of Vinny to represent. In a way the movie kind of showed that Vinny may not be the best choice of lawyer, when the Judge started talking down to Vinny.
The Judge had a second chance of making the defendants aware that Vinny may not be the best qualified at preliminary hearing. When once again Vinny was not ready to go through the process of trial. There is an unwritten requirement of a certain dress code as well as behavior in a court room. Which, Vinny is unprepared to deal with at this point of the movie. Vinny did not take the time to cross examine any of the witnesses or question any of the perceived facts
…show more content…
put into evidence by the Prosecutor. It was due to lack of knowledge on Vinny’s part for the procedure on how the case is to be presented. In a real case the facts presented by the Prosecutor would most defiantly be questioned by any defense lawyer as well as the witnesses would have been questioned. More than likely the trial would have been over at this point. It would not have been good for the movie at this point, but real life is rarely like the movies. At this point Vinny is getting more into the grove of things. He asks for a copy of all evidence against his clients. Not really knowing that he is entitled to all of it. Which is true in the court systems today. All the Prosecutor’s information is open to the Defense Attorney at all times. In today’s society a person like Vinny would probably not have passed any of the Bar Association Tests or any State Tests. His lacking in the basics of Court Room procedures would have stopped him from passing in the first place. No matter where you are from or what part of the country you are from, there are standards that need to be met and known to for all who participate in court room trails. There are uniform expectations for all who participate in the court room proceedings, whether they are defending, prosecuting, or even judging. There are rules both written and unwritten that applied to all. Lack of knowledge is not an excuse for not following all these procedures. During the bail hearing and arraignment, Vinny is yet again lost in procedure of things due to lack of knowledge. Due to the fact of his lack of knowledge he is sentenced to time in jail and a fine for not doing things right. Just like in a real court system if the Judge thinks he is being disrespected, he will charge the offending Lawyer or Defendant with contempt of court. When this happens there generally is a fine and or jail time. So both defendants and Vinny land in jail. In the movie the arraignment and bail hearing where supposedly happening at the same time. There was no reading of all the formal charges which would not happen in the real world. Formal charges are always read unless waved by the Defendant, and so stated for the record. Which in this case, was not waved in the movie. At this point in both real life and in the movie the process is moved along to the trial stage.
The movie did show that one prospective juror was questioned about certain aspects of the trail. In real life the jurors are questioned by both sets of attorneys and occasionally the judge. Vinny at this point starts doing what an Attorney should do. He started doing is own investigations as well as his own interviews of the witnesses. As any defense lawyer should have and would have been doing from the first part of the case. Vinny had a very late start of the investigation part of the case at hand. As with most lawyers today the investigation is a primary part of any case before, during and at the closing. Lawyers want to have all their bases covered as to not have any surprises they are not ready to address. In the movie Vinny found that each witness had problems with their creditability as to what they saw during the perpetration of the crime being heard by the
court. After the witnesses were discredited and found not to be reliable, as any lawyer would have done, Vinny did his job and moved for a dismissal of all charges in this case. That in its self is comparable to real life. The Prosecutor was left with a case that was full of holes and doubt, by the time Vinny had finished with the cross examination there really was no case. In real life the Defendant’s lawyer would have more than likely done his job and the case would have ended before it started. With the investigation of the witnesses and facts this case would not have made it to trial. This movie did a fair job in representing the steps and procedures involved in going to court for committing a major crime. Although the Amanda Rights were eluded to and waved, they were never stated in the movie. There also there were things added for comic relief in the movie that just would not happen in a real court system. This movie was really a spoof on the lawyers today and yesterday. In court rooms of all sizes some of the things in the movie just would not have happened. I do not believe that any lawyer would be that unprepared to take a case into a court room. For if they did they are opening themselves up to a possible law suit. So in that aspect it really did not give an accurate accounting of the Judicial System.
In this case, Vinny had to learn as he goes because he had never been in a real trial hearing before. Vinny was a personal injury lawyer in New York. During this case there were three eye witness saying that Bill and Stan were the criminals, who murdered
Christopher McCandless and Adam Shepard both did some similar targets in their lives, at the end it lead them to unexpected situations. Christopher McCandless was a young man who didn't believe in society and he chose to get away from that and left everything he had, including his family. He developed important relationships with key people that helped him on his journey into the wild. Similarly Adam Shepard was a young man who left with only $25 and a sleeping bag to go prove his point that the american dream does exist and to see if he can achieve it in a couple of months. Overall comparing McCandless and Shepard, Christopher McCandless had a greater impact in people, motivated many, and was selfish in plenty of good ways.
After watching this film I felt that the court did not give Ralph Tortorici a fair trial. First of all, Ralph had demonstrated a history of mental illness for most of his life and nothing was done to correct his illness, then the Judge also decided to proceed with the trial despite the evidence from the evaluation of the psychiatrist that Ralph was clearly not mentally stable and he needed to be hospitalized, and lastly Ralph was given an unjust and cruel punishment leading to his suicide due to the lack of help for his mental illness. Through his history of illness, the lack of proper trial and the lack of support for his paranoia schizophrenia demonstrate that Ralph Torto...
Not able to remember much about this particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either enhance the realism of the setting by emphasizing the court building's efficient, business like manner or to provide a timeslot in which to roll the credits for producer, director, stars, etc. The settings aren't only built upon through the use of scenery and extras in the movie. Invisible and distant in the play, we see in the movie the judge, bailiff, those witnessing the trial and most importantly of all- the defendant. This is an important change because in the case, we are free to come up with our own unbiased conclusions as to the nature and identity of the defendant, whom we only know to be a 19 year boy from the slums. Seeing his haggard and worn face in the movie changes all of that, yet for better or worse, it engages the audience deeper into the trial as they surely will sympathize with him and can gain some insight into why, later, Juror 8 does so as well.
In the film, A Civil Action, Trial Procedure was shown throughout the entire movie. There are many steps that need to be completed before a verdict and judgment can be reached. These steps are the pleadings, methods of discovery, pretrial hearings, jury selection, opening statements, introduction of evidence, cross examinations, closing arguments, instructions to the jury, and the verdict and judgment. The case in this movie was actually called Anderson v. Cryovac. The plaintiffs are the Anderson family, the Gamache family, the Kane family, the Robbins family, the Toomey family, and the Zona family. The plaintiffs’ attorneys are Jan Schlichtmann, Joe Mulligan, Anthony Roisman, Charlie Nesson, and Kevin Conway. The two co- defendants are W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods. The two co-defendants’ attorneys are William Cheeseman, Jerome Facher, Neil Jacobs, and Michael Keating.
He simply wanted to show and explain to his readers how the jury system really works. Instead of writing a book solely on the
John smith, the accused, stood up in the courtroom and started yelling at the judge about what he thought of his innocence irrespective of the decision that the judge would make. He also cursed the prosecutor and kept quiet when his lawyer warned him of the negative consequences that would follow if he continued with the same behavior. Smith did not answer any question that the judge asked him. The prosecutor indicated that he had observed similar behavior when he interviewed him, in jail.
My Cousin Vinny is a classic comedy movie involving mostly underrated actors, but somewhat more surprising is the accuracy of which it depicts the court proceedings. The movie portrays all of the significant aspects of an actual criminal trial, however it leaves out less “entertaining” portions of the court process. This being said, I would recommend this movie to anyone who does not have a basic knowledge of courtroom proceedings, as it hits on all of the major aspects of a trial in an exciting and comical manner, keeping the viewer entertained throughout the entire film, which one would not receive from any other piece.
make there decision, but in the end there was no way that the jury was going to believe a
My Cousin Vinny is an American comedy about two young boys from New York being falsely accused of murdering a store clerk. The movie starts out with Bill and Stan, two young boys, driving through Alabama smirking at the slower way of life down in the South. One of the young boys, Bill Gambini, after being arrested calls his “ma” and asks her to find a lawyer to represent himself and his friend Stan Rothenstein in their legal battle. Bill’s “ma” asks if there are any qualifications the lawyer must have, when she finds out there aren’t, she reminds Bill that his cousin Vinny is a lawyer.
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,...
As the one juror that felt the boy was innocent continued to try and convince the others that there was a chance that they could all be wrong, most all of the jurors were starting to see the possibility. Every time there was a new reason why he could be innocent, each juror had more to think about. Finally, the argument about the glasses swayed everyone just enough to withdrawal the guilty verdict and set the boy free.
This movie goes to show how such crucial facts and minuet evidence if not processed fully and clearly can change the outcome in such a big way. In this jury you have 12 men from all different walks of life, 12 different times, and 12 different personalities. Who have an obligation to come to one conclusion and that's whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under much frustration and lack of patience these 12 men began to get unruly and unfocused. Throughout this distraction key terms get misused, facts get turned around and more importantly emotions start to cross making it hard for these men to produce a verdict.
Were there any instances featured in the film where a plea deal was offered by the prosecution, but not accepted by the defendant, resulting in a significant prison term? If so, explain the case. Do you think the amount of time served in this instance would have been fewer years had the defendant accepted the plea deal? Explain your response. In the case of Patsy Kelly Jarret, she rejected a plea offer offered by the prosecution that resulted in a significant prison term. “In 1973, 23-year-old Kelly Jarrett, a North Carolina resident, drove to Utica, New York with a friend, Billy Ronald Kelly, for a summer-long vacation. It was only when the police showed up at her door three years later, Jarrett says, that she learned that during their New
The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.