Evidence In Attorney Vinny's Case

768 Words2 Pages

Attorney Vinny was trying to get information from the district attorney by coming up with as many ideas as he can. He didn’t know that the prosecution requires to share the information with attorney until his fiancée points out to him. This shows the lack of his knowledge in criminal justice. However, Vinny does pretty well getting legal points right, with some notable exceptions. He is the lawyer for both of the defendants. I thought that was pretty impressive and interesting. It was pretty conflict to defend two defendants. When Vinny cross-examining the witnesses, he applied his own knowledge to question the witnesses, and the questions he asked the witnesses became more advance every time, it was really effective, which has helped the defendants gained respect and confidence in him. The points that he made had surprised the entire people in trial, even the judge, because he had proved that the witnesses …show more content…

The sheriff had identified two new suspects, both were gentlemen, who were recently arrested with a gun that were the same as the gun used in the murder, and who were driving the same model of car as the defendants that could have left the tire tracks outside the convenience store. The sheriff investigated and later was on the stand discussed his discovery were both occurred during a trial, which is improbable in reality. You can’t investigate new evidence during a trial, it all has to be prepared before the trial. The attorney can’t call on police to help them investigate and respond to evidence they find out about for the first time at trial. If the lawyers surprised the court with undisclosed evidence, the judge will most likely stop the proceeding to find out what the lawyer is trying to pull. Immediate evidence that has appeared at the last minute really needs to be presented to the judge before presenting it in

Open Document