In the movie My Cousin Vinny, Vinny Gambini is set on a journey to prove his cousin and his friend innocent of a murder case. Bill and Stan are on a road trip to California to the University of California, Los Angeles, where they receive a scholarship to attend the university. On the way there they stop at a convenient store to buy some necessities for the trip. Their hands were full of food and drinks, when Bill put the can of tuna in his jacket because there was no way he couldn’t carry any more food.
Once they paid for the necessities they were back on the road. Bill realize he didn’t pay for the can of tuna and notice a sheriff car following them. The lights went off and the sheriff pulled them over. They were taking to the station for questioning of a murder. The whole time while being questioned, they both thought they were be accused of shoplifting. Once they realized what was happening, that’s when Bill’s cousin came to defend them.
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
…show more content…
There were some parts that seems a like unrealistic but this is a movie. Some of things were that would happen in a real life case would be witnesses testimony, questioning, and experts on stand. Also all of the researcher that happened outside of the courthouse would also occur before or during trial. Overall the movie, My Cousin Vinny was a good reputation of what a defense attorney, prosecutor, and judge’s duties are like. Each one of these roles were protrude and were a reasonable example of the job’s responsibilities. Also movie provided what witness have to endure during a hearing or trial. This movie is a more humorous way to learn about the process of a
Bill goes to trial for the death of Mary and they sentence him guilty. Mary’s mom cried after the verdict was announced. Ralph hears the news about Bill and he begins to break down and feels guilty, he keeps saying that he needs to see Jack. Ralph finally sees Jack and beats him up, which finally escalates till Mae to call the police. The drug raid was busted and all the people involved in the operation were arrested. Blanche tells the police what really happened, that Bill was framed by Ralph and it was all their faults. Bill got off of trail because there was new evidence that corroborated his innocence. Blanche then jumps out of the window right before she was going to either be prosecuted for accessory to murder or going to be used as a suspect against Ralph. Before she actually jumped she reminisced about how she affected and basically ruined Bill’s life since he cheated on her then got his girlfriend killed. Then Ralph is put through a mental institution because they believed he had to be crazy to act the way he did. Then the original guy at the beginning says his last few words about how marijuana could take over anyone’s
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
12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in their votes was if there was unanimous vote either guilty or not guilty among the 12 jurors. As the movie progressed the jurors ended up changing their minds as new evidence was brought to their attention by simple facts that were overlooked by the police and prosecutors in the initial investigation. Tempers were raised, and words flew, there was prejudice and laziness of a few of the jurors that affected the amount of time it took to go over all of the eye witness testimonies and evidence. The eye witness testimonies ended up being proven wrong and some of the evidence was thrown out because it was put there under false pretense.
The sentencing of underage criminals has remained a logistical and moral issue in the world for a very long time. The issue is brought to our perspective in the documentary Making a Murderer and the audio podcast Serial. When trying to overcome this issue, we ask ourselves, “When should juveniles receive life sentences?” or “Should young inmates be housed with adults?” or “Was the Supreme Court right to make it illegal to sentence a minor to death?”. There are multiple answers to these questions, and it’s necessary to either take a moral or logical approach to the problem.
First off, the settings in the movie are a great deal more fleshed out. In the play, the scene begins with the jurors regarding the judge's final statements concerning the case in the courtroom and then walking out into the jury room. In the movie, the audience is placed in the role of the invisible casual observer, who for perhaps the first 5 minutes of the movie, walks throughout the court building passing other court rooms, lawyers, defendants, security officers, elevators, etc. Not able to remember much about this particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either enhanced 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 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 play, 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 a 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. Of final note in this summary of points concerning the differences in setting, the jurors all mention the heat wave affecting the city when they begin, and as it agitates them, it serves to heighten the tension between each other and their resentment or other feelings towards jury duty. Oh- also lastly, I think we can infer that the movie takes place in Manhattan, New York City.
The court proceedings then move to the probable cause hearing, which is when a judicial officer will review police documents and reports to ensure that probable cause supported the arrest. During this time, Vinny didn’t even bother to cross examine the witnesses brought to testify in favor of the prosecution, which is responsible for presenting the state’s case against the defendant, which is played by Jim Trotter III. It is after this that the defendants decide to use a public defender, which is a state-employed lawyer defending indigent defendants. Ultimately both defendants decide to hire Vinny again, partially because their public defender had a terribly stuttering
17 year old Jason MacLennan “Jason” returned home after a night out just after midnight after a night out with his friend in St. Cloud Minnesota. He took a shower downstairs before he went to bed he went upstairs to get something to eat. On his way up he saw his dad in the hallway lying on the floor bleeding, he proceeded to call 911 when paramedics arrived they found Ken MacLennan dead (53) “Ken”. The police said “It looked like he came down the stairs and he was confronted by the shooter, At least 6 shots went off if not 7”.- (Forensic Files,Season 13, Ep.3 “Shoot to Thrill”). Police immediately assumed the motive for this case was robbery due to the fact that Ken’s wallet and credit cards were missing along with some cash.
Juror number eight is the main protagonist, he also a reserved with his thoughts, yet very strategic with them. He is the defender of the down trodden victim. He has a calm rational approach to everything and he reveals the gaps in the testimonies placed against the defendant. These examples would be; that the old man couldn’t have seen the boy run out of the house, as the old man had a limp and therefore could not make it to the door in time. The old lady across the road could have never saw the boy stab his father, due to she wasn’t wearing her glasses and it was pitch black. Number eight is a man that s...
The underlying problem is the wrongful arrest, of which they must get themselves free. To solve the problem Stan and Bill find themselves, they decide to contract Bill’s cousin, Vinny. Vinny travels to Alabama to represent them in court.
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.
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.
The story as a whole was inspired by Reginald Rose’s experience of jury duty in New York City. At first he was reluctant to serve on the jury, but he ended up telling in a press meet “ The Moment I Walked into the courtroom and found myself facing a strange man, whose fate is suddenly more or less in my hands, my entire attitude changed.” The words from Rose showed the pressure he faced inside the courtroom and his personal conscience he had not to make a mistake with the decision. The overview of the story is an engrossing drama in which eleven jurors believe the accused is guilty,
Some people say that by watching the court system in action, what once was very unknown and unfamiliar, has now become familiar and useful in helping people become more knowledgeable of what happens inside courtrooms. Most people have not been in a courtrooms and only have the perspective that T.V. gives to them. Now they are able to see what really goes on and now can better understand and relate.
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible.
The film 12 Angry Men consisted of twelve members of the jury who tried to solve a murder trial case. Trapped in a room, all men put their heads together by communicating and listening to each other. Each juror voted unanimously and in order for them to make a decision every juror had to agree to the same thing. However, out of all the jurors (Henry Fonda) the architect had a different perspective. Just when all eleven jurors had agreed that the boy was guilty the architect stood up and said the boy was not guilty. The case was about a lady who had given her testimony in court swearing she saw the little boy kill his own father. One boy's fate is on one man’s hand. As the architect tried to prove his point towards the others, the old juror