The 1992 movie My Cousin Vinny, directed by Jonathan Lynn, depicts the struggle of two friends trying prove their innocence after being wrongly accused of robbery and murder. The two friends on trial are Bill Gambini, who is played by Ralph Macchio, and Stan Rothenstein, who is played by Mitchell Whitfield. Bill calls his cousin, Vincent LaGuardia ”Vinny” Gambini played by Joe Pesci, who is a rookie personal injury lawyer from Brooklyn, New York, to represent him in court as his defense attorney. A defense attorney is a lawyer that specializes in defending individuals and companies charged with a committing a crime.
With that being said, it can easily be seen that Vinny is a novice when it comes to being a defense attorney. During the arraignment process, Vinny wanted to skip this process by trying to go straight to the trial instead of stating how the two defendants plead. An arraignment is the first appearance of the defendant before the court that has the authority to conduct a trial in which the defendant is read the charges against them and allows the defendant to enter a plea, which is
…show more content…
either guilty, not guilty, or no contest. Vinny’s lack of knowledge of the criminal court procedure ends up getting him held in contempt of court by Judge Haller, who is played by Fred Gwynne and gets his bail set at two-hundred dollars. Being held in contempt is being disrespectful or disobedient towards the court of law. At the same time, Bill and Stan find out that their bail, which is the money or property pledged to the court or actually deposited with the court to effect the release of a person from legal custody.
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
problem. During the trial, which is the examination in court of the issues of facts and relevant law in case for the purpose of convicting or acquitting the defendant, Vinny begins to cross examine the prosecution’s witnesses. He begins to make the witnesses look bad after gathering information about these witnesses from finding out that the prosecution had to give disclosure of all forms pertaining to the case. Vinny begins to slowly discredit every witness by starting with the first witness Sam Tipton. Vinny was able to show that there was about a twenty minute gap between the time he saw the defendant’s leave the store, and the time he heard the gunshots, which brings about the question of credibility of the witness. He then goes to the next witness Mrs. Riley, who stated that she saw both the defendants come out of the store after the gunshots. Upon examination, Vinny was able to prove that she could not see them because she has bad eyesight. Lastly he discredits the last witness by stating that he could not accurately identify the defendants through his dirty windows and trees and bushes. On the third day of the trial, the prosecution brings an FBI analyst as an expert witness, who is a person that has special skills or knowledge recognized by the court, and who may express opinions and draw conclusions within their area of expertise during testimony. He testifies that his chemical testing of the tire and the tracks match that of the tires of the defendant’s car. As a way to counteract, Vinny calls upon Lisa as an expert witness, and she ends up tying the case together in favor of the defendants. The first case I will be analyzing is Rochin v. California. The police had some information regarding Rochin about how he was selling narcotics. Then on the morning of July 1, 1949, three deputy sheriffs of the County of Los Angeles went to Rochin’s two-story home. They went into the open door of his house and proceeded to force their way into Rochin’s room on the second floor. They then found two capsules on the night stand which Rochin then swallowed. Rochin was then handcuffed and taken to the hospital where he was forced to get his stomach pumped. He then appealed his charges of possession of morphine on the grounds that the officers had unlawfully entered his home, and forcing him to submit to his stomach being pumped at the hospital. The Supreme Court then reviewed the case on the basis that the officer’s may have violated Rochin’s rights. My personal opinion about this case is that the officers were wrong in the way that they did not knock and announce, but rather went through an open door to the house and forced their way into his room. They then forcibly entered the man’s body without warrant by ordering his stomach to be pumped. It is an invasion of property, and individual rights, and therefore I believe that his charges should have been dropped. In order for a search to be lawful, officers need a knock and announce warrant, if there are exigent circumstances, there is no need for a knock. In this case I feel as if the officers took advantage of the open door which was unlawful. I also believe that forcing Rochin to get his stomach pumped was also a violation because they did not get authorization to have his stomach pumped. The next case I will be analyzing is the U.S. v. Armstrong. Christopher Lee Armstrong, Aaron Hampton, Freddie Mack, Shelton Martin, and Robert Rozelle were all indicted on charge of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base crack and conspiring to distribute the same. Three months before their indictment, the Narcotic Divison of the Inglewood Police Dept. infiltrated the suspected crack house. Agents searched the hotel room where they arrested the defendants. They then entered a motion for discovery on a claim of selective prosecution. The U. S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the motion. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed it, and the full Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court. This case shows that the prosecuting attorney singled them out based off of his race, and failed to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races. I personally feel like if justice is about finding the truth and serving justice, then race should not play a factor in any process of the criminal justice system because that can be considered racial profiling. Justice is blind and therefore one person cannot be singled out of a group of individuals who are suspected of committing the same crime. This shows that there are still cracks and flaws in our system because the people who are in charge of enforcing and punishing, let their bias get the best of them. I do understand that with statistics it is more likely for a black male to commit a crime, but that does not make it okay for law enforcement officers to target certain groups. Everyone has the right to be treated equally and fairly under the law, and for this reason I do agree that the prosecution racially profiled the defendants.
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
Sandra Petrocelli is the prosecuting lawyer and is good. She is pushing for the death penalty. She states that everyone involved in the crime is equally guilty including the one who wrestled for the gun, the robber and the two lookouts. She is trying to prove that Steve knew and associated with the two robbers who are bad characters.
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.
The court system includes the judges, jury, prosecutors and defense attorneys. The Attorneys convince the suspects to take plea bargains, the judges are sometimes unfair in the decisions they make, and the prosecutors overlook exculpatory evidence. Picking cotton shows in detail some common errors of the court system. During Ronald Cotton 's first trial, His Attorney, Phil Moseley, tried to bring a memory expert to testify on the unreliability of memory but the judge denied his request. After Ronald 's case was overturned by the supreme court, he got a new trial in another court which had even more problems and bias. First, there was racial prejudice during the jury selection. “Four black people from the community got called in for jury duty. The judge himself dismissed one of them and then Mr turner made sure none of the rest sat on my jury” Ronald cotton stated. Because he was black, the four jurors were dismissed and he was left with an all white jury and two white Alternates. Second, the judge “Held something called a “voir dire” hearing, which Phil explained meant he would have to put up all the evidence about Poole in front of the Judge, but not the Jury”(129). Also, Ronald Cotton 's defense attorney explained to the judge the parallelism between Bobby Poole 's case and the rape Ronald Cotton was charged with. Despite the weak physical evidence against Ronald Cotton, the
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.
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.
The job of a criminal lawyer is quite difficult. Whether on the defense or the prosecution, you must work diligently and swiftly in order to persuade the jury. Some lawyers play dirty and try to get their client off of the hook even though they are guilty without a doubt. Even though the evidence is all there, the prosecution sometimes just can’t get the one last piece of the puzzle to make the case stick and lock the criminal up. Such is the case Orenthal James Simpson.
Richard Kuklinski was a convicted hitman who worked has claimed to have killed at least 200 people over the course of his life. The theory that best describes Kuklinski and his personality is the psychodynamic theory. The psychodynamic theory states that people are affected by their early childhood experiences. Sigmund Freud best described the psychodynamic theory by talking about the 3 parts to a personality; The Id, the ego, and the superego. (Siegel 119). Those combined shape our behavior as humans in a conscious and subconscious way. The Id, is our initial primitive desire for things like food, sex, and love. Those are things we naturally subconsciously and consciously want. Then the ego comes in and takes what we want, then finds a
In chapter twelve, Joel Samaha has discussed various court proceedings before trial. Samaha begins to elaborate the importance of the prosecutor’s decision in determining whether there is a concrete case against the alleged defendant. The evidence at hand ultimately dictates the proceeding of events in court. Along with evidence, the lack of resources might add to the difficulty in charging an individual. Prosecutors are faced with an overload of cases; ultimately prosecutors are forced to prioritize their cases based on their resources and the evidence provided. The cases that are regarded are then considered for suspect detainment. Probable cause to detain suspects is undergone so that the case may proceed to trial. Typically an arraignment
“The trial was brought to a speedy conclusion. Not only did Judge Evans find the twelve guilty, fine them $100 each, and committed them to jail, but five people in the courtroom who had served as witnesses for the defense arrested. […] The police were then instructed to transfer the seventeen prisoners that night to the county jail”(30).
A group of girls sit on the left side while the judges are sitting in front of the podium. They seat the accused in between the two front bleachers. They begin the trail, calling anybody that has seen you do suspicious behavior. A few people come up and make various claims, one includes the accused’s wealthy, greedy neighbor who says that he saw through the window of her house. Chanting strange words while drinking chicken blood in the middle of the night.
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
Next, comes prosecution of the defendant by the state attorney, then incitement, the filing of information by prosecution to decide whether to proceed to trial. Followed by arraignment, which is the plea of guilty or not guilty, pretrial detention, plea bargaining, trial, and sentencing (Process of Criminal Justice). For O. J. Simpson, this process started with the investigation of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. The same day the bodies were discovered, Simpson flew back from Chicago to Los Angeles. Upon his arrival, authorities took him into custody and began their questioning.
They called it a near miss, but I called it "the grace of God". I am still here on earth. I am a recover alcohol. I been sober for 7 years." Thank you God" . I went cold turkey and no "AA meetings. I went to God in prayer. He deliver me from alcohol. I been drinking all my life. I should be dead . He saved me for a purpose. My ex-husband died from drinking alcohol. He lost his pancreas. He was in and out hospitals a lot in our marriage. I never seen one piece paper after his release from hospital. He must was throwing them away. In my life. I had a lot of near a miss ,but God .My ex-husband was my first love .I loved this man more than I loved myself -sad, but true . I learned self-love after my divorce with " God help" again. You got love