Anecdota

Laughter is the Best Medicine

Real Lawyer Reacts to My Cousin Vinny (The Most Accurate Legal Comedy?)


– I’m holding you in contempt of court. – Well, there’s a (bleep) surprise. – What’d you say? (lawyer laughs) – What? – What’d you just say? – Don’t talk back to the
judge, quit while you’re ahead. Or quit while you’re slightly behind. This movie is so great. (bright music) Hey legal eagles, it’s
time to think like a lawyer All right, animated, smile more. Today we are covering My Cousin Vinny one of my favorite legal
movies of all time. And if there is one question I get more than any other it is… – What are you wearing? – Indochino. Let me try that again. If there is one comment
I get more than any other it’s whether My Cousin Vinny
is in fact legally accurate. It’s certainly a favorite among lawyers. We quote this movie all the time. – What is a yute? – So, be sure to comment
in the form on an objection which I’ll sustain or overrule. And stick around until
the end of the video where I give My Cousin Vinny
a grade for legal realism. So, without further ado, let’s
dig in to My Cousin Vinny. – Uh-oh.
– What? – His lights are on. (bleep) (bleep) god (bleep),
what are we gonn do now? – It’s probably nothing, all right? It might be a taillight
or something, just relax. – We don’t have any money for bail. – Bail, we don’t need money
for bail, nothing’s happened. Now just relax.
– Nothing? We’re getting pulled over, aren’t we? You stole something, didn’t you? You’re finished.
– Please, will you shut up? – Oh, I forgot some background here that actually helps explain
the rest of this movie. The movie starts with
two kids from New York who are driving through the South. They stop at a grocery
store called the Sac-O-Suds to pick up some supplies,
and they accidentally leave with a can of tuna in their
pocket without paying for it. They think that when the
police pull them over they’re being pulled over
for accidentally shoplifting a can of tuna when in fact
the store manager was murdered just after they left the store. Okay, so with that
background, that will make the rest of this movie
make a lot more sense. – Show me your hands.
– Jesus. – Show me your hands. Get them up, get them up, up! Now put your hands on top of your head and get out of the car. Out of the car! – All right, so this is a
case of mistaken identity. But it’s important to
note that when a policeman stops your car, it’s
generally considered a seizure for fourth amendment purposes. So, generally speaking the
police may not stop your car unless they have at least
reasonable suspicion to believe that the law has been violated. Provided that the police have
lawfully stopped the vehicle, the officer can order
the occupants to get out in the name of officer safety. Here, all of those requirements are met. We have a murder that
was conducted by people driving a very similar car
who fit the description of the defendants here,
so it was very likely that the police did in
fact have probable cause to stop this car and were
correct in ordering the occupants to get out of the car
because of the grisly nature of the murder that just happened nearby. – [Male] Yeah, yeah, yeah I’m sure, it’s number three and five. – Ridiculous. All this over a can of tuna. – [Male] Keep quiet. – Okay, so that was a
classic police lineup. There are a couple problems here. A defendant can attack the identification as denying due process when the identification,
the lineup itself, is unnecessarily suggestive. And there is a substantial
likelihood of misidentification. If we roll the clip back, we can see you had the two defendants here look nothing like the rest
of the people in the lineup. They are several feet shorter and far skinnier. Also additionally, both of them are in the
lineup at the same time. And that is likely to be
unnecessarily suggestive and to create a false positive which is exactly what happened here. – Well, approving an
attorney from out of state is a pretty informal matter. I just have a few questions. – Huh, cool. This is a real thing. It’s a motion called a pro hac vice motion where an out-of-state attorney wants to have temporary permission to practice in a state
that they aren’t licensed. Usually you have to be
sponsored by another attorney but you always have to vouch and say that you are
going to follow the laws of that state and
jurisdiction when you apply. – How long you been practicing? – Oh about six, almost 16 years. – Any murder cases? – Quite a few, yes. – [Judge] What was the outcome? – You know win some, lose some. – Never a good idea to lie to a judge. The judge will find out eventually and you can be sanctioned both in the state that
you are trying to get into but also the state that
you come from as well. – Mr. Gambini, stand up. – Not again. – Now didn’t I tell you the next time you appear in my courtroom that you’d dress appropriately? – You were serious about that? (laughs) – Again, wear an actual suit
and tie when you go to court. I really wish I could tell Joe Pesci where I get all of my suits from. Indochino. – [Mona Lisa] What’s all that? – Trotter’s files, all of ’em. – You stole his files? – I didn’t steal his files. Listen to this, I’m just ready to finesse him, I’m starting to finesse him, right, I got him going. He offers to have his secretary
copy everything for me. – That’s very impressive finessing. – Yeah, in reality, the reason that the prosecution would turn over materials to the defense is they have a constitutional
obligation to do so. The government has a duty
to disclose materials, certainly all exculpatory evidence but generally that translates
to all of the material that the prosecution has under
supreme court precedence, specifically the 1963 case
of Brady Vs. Maryland. Failure to disclose that evidence, whether willful or inadvertent, is a due process violation. So the prosecutor here was
constitutionally obligated to turn over his files to Joe Pesci. It had nothing to do with his schmoozing and to not do so would be
what’s called a Brady Violation and could’ve resulted in
overturning the conviction, if he was able to get a conviction. – Don’t you want to know why Trotter gave you his files? – I told you why already. – He has to by law, you’re entitled. It’s called disclosure, you (bleep) head. – Hey, I just said that. Nice job, Marisa Tomei. – He has to show you everything otherwise it could be a mistrial. He has to give you a list
of all his witnesses, you can talk to all his witnesses. He’s not allowed any surprises. – Yep. Gone are the days of trying to
ambush either party at trial. Prosecution has to turn over not only their evidence but as part of the pretrial filings you have to disclose who the witnesses are that you’re going to rely on so that no one is sandbagged when they actually get to trial. That doesn’t help anyone. – Didn’t teach you that
in law school either? – Guess not. – Are you mocking me with that outfit? – Mocking you? No, I’m not mocking you, judge. – Then explain that outfit. – I bought a suit, you seen it. Now it’s covered in mud. This town doesn’t have a one hour cleaners so I had to buy a new suit except that the only store
you could buy a new suit in has got the flu. You get that? The whole store got the flu. So I had to get this
in a second hand store. – Joe Pesci could really use a place where he could get
affordable custom made suits so he could actually
have more than one suit when he shows up to court for a capital murder case. Indochino.com promo code legal eagle. – I think you made your point. – In all seriousness, he probably would’ve been better off wearing his actual normal
suit covered in mud. I’ve actually known lawyers who will purposefully scuff up their suits so that they seem more
approachable by the jury. – You on drugs? – Drugs? No, I don’t take drugs. – I don’t like your attitude. – What else is new? – I’m holding you in contempt of court. – Oh, there’s a (bleep) surprise. – What’d you say? (laughs) – What? – What’d you just say? – Don’t talk back to the judge. Quit while you’re ahead or quit while you’re slightly behind. This movie is so great. – counsel, members of the jury, the evidence in this case is gonna show that at 9:30 in the
morning of January 4th, both defendants, Stanley
Rothenstein and William Gambini, were seen getting out of their metallic green 1964
Buick Skylark convertible with a white top. The evidence is gonna show that they were seen entering the Sac-O-Suds convenience
store in Wazoo City. The evidence is gonna show that minutes after they
entered the Sac-O-Suds, a gunshot was heard by
three eye witnesses. You gonna then hear the testimony of the three eye witnesses who saw the defendants
running out of the Sac-O-Suds a moment after the shots were heard, getting into their faded
metallic green 1964 Buick Skylark and driving off in great haste. – Alright, I really, really, really like the prosecutor’s opening
statement in this movie. There are a couple things that he’s doing that actually rarely happen
correctly in the movies. Number one, this prosecutor is giving a short summary of what the evidence will show. Opening statements are about essentially priming the jury for the story that is going to be elicited through the evidence and
through the witnesses. So this prosecutor’s doing a fantastic job of explaining what the evidence will show. On top of that, this prosecutor is doing a great job of using the space in front of the jury while also at the same time maintaining a respectful
distance away from the jury box. If you enter the well and go straight to the area
right in front of the jury, the judge is going to have
a huge problem with that. But I like that he starts a counsel table, talks about what the
evidence is going to show. And specifically to highlight the testimony of a specific witness, he then walks over
towards the witness stand and gestures to where the
testimony’s going to come from. So he is being dramatic
and somewhat theatrical but within the bounds of what
someone would actually do in a way that makes rhetorical sense. – Counselor, you wish to
make an opening statement? (laughs) Counselor? – I have never seen lead trial counsel fall
asleep at counsel table but I have 100% seen other attorneys who are at
counsel table fall asleep, I’ve seen members of the jury
fall asleep during the trial, I’ve seen people in the
gallery fall asleep at trial. I’ve actually seen a bailiff
fall asleep in a trial once. A lot of the trial process is actually pretty boring and mundane and it’s not uncommon to
see people fall asleep, just not the head trial counsel. – Everything that guy
just said is (bleep). Thank you. – In addition to being vulgar and disrespectful to the court, that’s technically an argument and not allowed as your opening statement. Mr. Tipton, when you viewed the defendants walking from their car
into the Sac-O-Suds, what angle was your point of view? – They was kind of walking toward me when they entered the stall. – And when they left, what angle was your point of view? – They was kind of walking away from me. – So would you say you
got a better shot of them going in and not so much coming out? – You could say that. – I did say that. Would you say that? – Yeah. – This is really good. The testimony was ambiguous and so Joe Pesci here follows up and confirms that the witness does in fact agree with the statement that Joe Pesci has said. That is a very crucial thing that a lot of lawyers miss. It’s so easy when you’re in
the heat of cross examination that you just assume that the testimony is what you think it is when in reality, we’re
really unreliable narrators. So it’s a great idea to
make sure and summarize and get the witness to actually state exactly what it is
you want them to prove. And on top of that, when you’re getting good testimony, it’s a great idea to get the witness to repeat the thing that
is actually good for you. So great job by Joe Pesci here so far. – Is it possible the two yutes– – Two what? (laughs) What was that word? – What word? – Two what? – What? – Did you say yutes? – Yeah two yutes. – What is a yute? – Excuse me, your honor, two youths. – That’s great because again in the heat of cross examination sometimes people slur their words, sometimes the court
reporter can’t take down exactly what was said or people kind of talk over each other. So it is a real thing where the judge or
particularly the stenographer will actually stop the
testimony to clarify, and of course this is probably
the most classic scene in the entire movie. And it’s just hilarious. Because there’s a kernel of truth in it. – Is it possible the two defendants entered the store, picked 22 specific items
off of the shelves, had the clerk take money, make change, then leave. Then, two different men
drive up in a similar, don’t shake your head, I’m not done yet, wait till you hear the whole thing so you can understand this now, two different men drive
up in similar looking car, go in, shoot the clerk,
rob him and then leave? – No. They didn’t have enough time. – Well how much time
was they in the store? – Five minutes. – Five minutes. Are you sure? Did you look at your watch? – No. – Oh, oh, oh, I’m sorry, you testified earlier that the boys went into the store and you had just begun to make breakfast, you were just ready to eat and you hard a gunshot,
that’s right, I’m sorry. So obviously it takes you five minutes to make breakfast. – That’s right. – Right, so you knew that. Do you remember what you had? – Eggs and grits. – So Joe Pesci is being a
little bit argumentative here but what he’s doing is he is setting a
factual and logical trap for the witness to show that the witness doesn’t have the kind of voracity or truthfulness that would be necessary to convict for beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can show that a witness is lying or can’t be trusted on one thing, members of the jury are far less likely to believe them on most of
the rest of their testimony. That can be really, really important for disproving the
testimony of an eye witness. – Instant grits? – No self respecting
southerner uses instant grits. I take pride in my grits. – So Mr. Tipton, how could it take you five
minutes to cook your grits when it takes the entire
grit eating world 20 minutes? – So it’s a great question because there’s no good
answer for the witness. And additionally, it relies
on facts not in evidence that grits actually take 20 minutes. In real life, he would’ve
had to have this witness establish that grits
take 20 minutes to cook. So you got to be really, really careful when you’re doing a tactic
like what Joe Pesci is doing. And it can work out but it’s very, very dangerous on cross ’cause you don’t know
which way it’s gonna go. – So what are these pictures of? – My house and stuff. – House and stuff. And what is this brown
stuff on the windows? – Dirt. – Dirt. What is this rusty dusty
dirty looking thing over your window? – It’s a screen. – A screen, it’s a screen. And what are these really big things right in the middle of your view from the window of your
kitchen to the Sac-O-Suds? What do we call these big things? – Trees? – I absolutely love what Joe
Pesci is doing right here. He is using effectively
incontrovertible evidence, no one’s gonna dispute what
these things are in the photos but he is walking the
witness down a logical path that he’s not going to
be able to get out of which is that there’s a lot of stuff between his vantage point and the events that he
is an eye witness to. This is one of the reasons why direct evidence through
eye witness testimony can be actually very, very unreliable. But what Joe Pesci is doing is he is just having the witness agree to just these tiny little facts. And there’s no way to dispute all of the little breadcrumbs he’s getting on his trail to get to
the ultimate conclusion that his eye witness testimony is not really that believable. So the questions are fantastic. The only thing I would’ve
liked to have seen is a projector or an Elmo that displays these photos in blow up so that the jury can also see exactly what it is that the
witness is referring to. – You could positively
identify the defendants for a moment of two seconds looking through this dirty window, this crud covered screen, these trees with all these leaves on them and I don’t know how many bushes? – It’s like five. – Eh eh, don’t forget
this one or this one. – Seven bushes. – Seven bushes. So what do you think? Is it possible you just saw
two guys in a green convertible and not necessarily these
two particular guys? – I suppose. – And what you see here is that the answer that
the witness provides it doesn’t matter. The witness here can agree or the witness can not agree but the sign of a good cross is that you don’t actually care what the witness is going to say. In fact, if he had said that it was a perfect identification he would’ve lost credibility based on all of the things that Joe Pesci just talked about here. So that is the sign of a
masterful cross examination. I would recommend all lawyers watch this particular cross
examination of this witness. This is the best so far. – I’m a special automotive
instructor of forensic studies for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. – Uh huh. How long you been in that position? – 18 years. – Your honor, may we approach the bench please? – [Judge] If you wish. – I object to this witness
being called at this time. We’ve been given no prior
notice he’d testify, no discovery of any tests he’s conducted or reports he’s prepared and as the court is aware, the defense is entitled to advance notice of any witness who will testify, particularly those who will
give scientific evidence so that we can properly
prepare for cross examination, as well as to give the
defense an opportunity to have the witnesses’s reports reviewed by a defense expert who might then be in a position to contradict the voracity
of his conclusions. – The prosecution here
has made a huge mistake which is they haven’t laid the foundation for how this guy is a credible expert who can testify in court. So there’s really only
two kinds of witnesses. There are lay witness who can only testify to
things they actually perceive and then there are experts who are allowed to testify to their opinions on things based on the evidence presented to them. And under Rule 702 of
the Rules of Procedure, the expert has to have
scientific, technical or specialized knowledge that will help the trier of fact, the testimony has to be based on sufficient facts or data, the testimony has to be the product of reliable principles and methods and the expert has to have reliably applied the
principles and methods to the case at hand. So on top of FRE 702, you also have to meet the Daubert Standard which is meant to give the
court the gatekeeping function to prevent junk science from getting into the court. – There is no way that these tire marks were made by a ’64 Buick Skylark. These marks were made by
a 1963 Pontiac Tempest. – Objection, your honor, can we clarify to the court whether the witness is
stating opinion or fact. – This is your opinion? – It’s a fact. – It’s actually opinion. – That this kind of information could be ascertained simply by looking at a picture. – Would you like me to explain? – I would love to hear this. – Alright. – The car that made these
two equal length tire marks had positraction. Can’t make those marks
without positraction which was not available
on the ’64 Buick Skylark. – And why not? What is positraction? – It’s a limited slip differential which distributes power equally to both the right and left tires. The ’64 Skylark had a regular differential which anyone whose been stuck
in the mud in Alabama knows you step on the gas, one tire spins, the other tire does nothing. – Oh it’s so good. This is a great direct
examination by Joe Pesci and great testimony by Marisa Tomei. Unlike in cross examination where the attorney is the star and the witness’ answers
are almost irrelevant, it’s the absolute opposite
on direct examination. There, you want all eyes on the witness and all you’re doing is asking questions that
allow the witness to expand and you’re softly guiding where
you want the witness to go. Joe Pesci’s questions are fantastic. Essentially, what happened next or can you explain why that is? What is that technical term that you just used? He’s using great open ended questions. He’s not leading her anywhere. And he is letting the witness be the star. – Now in the ’60s, there were only two other
cars made in America that had positraction and
independent rear suspension and enough power to make these marks. One was the Corvette which could never be confused
with the Buick Skylark. The other had the same body length, height, width, weight,
wheel base and wheel track as the ’64 Skylark and that was the 1963 Pontiac Tempest. – And because both cars were made by GM, were both cars available in
metallic mint green paint? – They were. – Thank you, Miss Veto. No more questions. Thank you very, very much, you’ve been a lovely, lovely witness. – It’s probably not appropriate but God it’s a perfect scene. How can you just not love
that direct examination and Marisa Tomei’s expert opinion? Fantastic, amazing. (upbeat music) Okay, that was My Cousin Vinny. Now it’s time to give the movie
a grade for legal realism. (pounding) I have a soft spot in
my heart for this movie. It’s so good. Everyone should absolutely see it. If you’ve never seen it before, I hope I didn’t ruin it. First of all, you have Joe Pesci giving a masterful cross examination and a masterful direct examination that frankly you could take those clips and use them to teach trial
advocacy in law school. You have some motion practice
and some civil procedure that is not 100% accurate
but pretty close. Of course, as a comedy, they take license with a few things. Joe Pesci is floundering around, making huge mistakes but it sort of fits the narrative because he’s supposed to be
a really terrible attorney who just got out of law school at the beginning of this movie. And there’s some shenanigans with experts being allowed when they shouldn’t be and lying to the judge but it’s done in such a way that it has a grain of truth to it. So it’s hard for me to get over just how good this movie is because it’s a fantastic comedy, it’s a good drama and it’s a nice work of legal fiction. So I don’t see how I
can give My Cousin Vinny anything less than an A. It’s so good. Go watch this movie. – The defense rests. – Vincent Gambini really screwed up by not wearing a proper suit to court. It’s hard to overstate
the value of a great suit. All of my suits are now
custom made by Indochino. I buy them with my own money. I love their stuff so much, I personally reached out to them. Here’s the secret to a great suit. Fit matters more than anything and the only way to get
a suit that fits right is to get it custom. In the past, that has been
unbelievably expensive. But Indochino allows you to make a fully custom suit for a ridiculous price, often less than $400. I don’t know how they do it but their suits use the best materials and are perfectly tailored. I will never get an off
the rack suit again. I’ve had trouble with
made-to-measure suits in the past because I couldn’t get
the measurements right but with Indochino, I
just walked into the store and got the full attention of
a stylist for over an hour. What’s up Andrew? He took my measurements and a couple weeks later, I got the best fitting
suit of my entire life. It was perfect right out of the box. Legal eagles can get any
premium Indochino suit for just $379 when you enter the promo
code legaleagle at checkout or use the link in the description. Clicking the link really
helps out this channel. That’s indochino.com,
promo code legaleagle for the best custom suit
of your entire life. – Did you fall in your
place or somebody else’s? – My place. (bleep) – So, do you agree? Leave your objections in the comments and check out my other real
lawyer reactions over here where I will see you in court.

100 thoughts on “Real Lawyer Reacts to My Cousin Vinny (The Most Accurate Legal Comedy?)

  1. Seriously, guys. If you're thinking about a suit, I can't recommend Indochino enough. https://bit.ly/2IeeB8W (plus it helps out the channel)

  2. Objection — Please! The cousins thought that they were in a lineup for stealing tuna! There MUST be some constitutional requirements that force law officers to explain the charges levied against a suspect!

  3. Saw "My Cousin Vinny" years ago. Very funny and it appears to according to the lawyer in this video to have been extremely accurate in how the court case was performed. Certain parts I found to be very interesting regarding exculpatory evidence. The prosecution, by law, has to include any and all evidence that can be used by the defense to protect the rights of the accused. Dare I ask, if the Brady rule had been violated recently by certain people in the last few years under a different administration? The ones who presented, as we all now know to be phony, bought and paid for information used to spy on American citizens, illegally one might add. That same bogus document, without any vetting or verification as to its authenticity had been signed off by different members of the DoJ as accurate before being presented to the FISA courts? Those few facts, not being vetted properly, bought and paid for by a campaign organization and its candidate from foreign sources, whose foreign intel agencies cooperated apparently in conducting an attempted coup of the current administration. Amazing how a simple video like this, may be able to open the eyes of so many after it is shown how some people will violate your rights with the help of people who hate you. opposing candidates, members of an administration that weaponized you, and a more than willing media. Not even going to mention anyone's name here. You all already know what that is all about.

  4. In "Murder, She Wrote" episode "Trial by Error", a trial goes down with Angela Lansbury as a Jury member. Would it be possible to react on this episode?

  5. 7:48 I was told by a friend working in downtown FW that racehorse Haynes once or twice made a scene of clumsily spilling water all over himself and getting all flustered in view of the jury… Haha
    So can anyone corroborate this?

    (lol I got a laugh out of him acting it out man)

    ….(but really I can see how if you sensed the jury may feel manipulated by your reputation of success or your strategy, that a bit of a clumsy fumble would make a jury feel more socially confident in your presence, and therefore that 'you couldn't possibly fool them' like they previously may have thought) -risky as hell but i could see it.

  6. He still shouldn't have gotten away with stealing the can of tuna. On another note, Marrissa Tomei is Peter's and in the new Spiderman movies. She was hot AF then and she's hot AF now. 😍😍😍

  7. 16:08
    Can I just say how much I LOVE how the witness takes a few seconds to answer the question? Even with the look on his face. He is extremely confused. It's not every day a grown man asks you what a tree is.

  8. Vinny wasn't slurring his words. That is his Brooklyn accent. 🤣🤣🤣 It's a Brooklyn thing. 🤣🤣🤣 When you're from Brooklyn, Everything Else Is Tokyo -Larry King

  9. What if you commit something like rape and you want to represent yourself. Can you interview the person you allegedly raped?

  10. As someone who works in personal injuries litigation, one of the most legally accurate things I've ever seen in either tv or movies is when Vinny first asks the guy in the neck brace in the bar whether he had been rear-ended and then, when he said he had fallen, asks whether it was on someone else's property. It was an A+ right there for me

  11. OBJECTION! The Youtube Jury did not get to hear your opinion on the recall of the Prosecution's "Expert", George Wilbur and how Vinny dealt with him after Lisa's testimony.

  12. so you're saying indochino suits are sometimes infested with fleas? thanks for the info i'll avoid them at all costs!

  13. Objection-"Needs better suits' He needs ACCESS to those suits. Vinny even said that with the limited time he had after his good suit was soiled, there was only the second hand store that was open to get any kind of suit in that town

  14. Great breakdown, and I also love this movie. I just have one gripe with your terminology:
    Saying that a vehicle isn't capable of something isn't an opinion. Allowing for her to be wrong, you could say it's a claim, an assertion, a theory, or several other terms. An opinion is something with no factual basis; to which the terms correct or incorrect cannot be applied.
    "The Buick Skylark convertible is ugly," is an opinion. What she said is not.

  15. There is a part in her witness testimony where she was only partially correct, I think it was something to do with the ignition timing, which as she was correct, there was other engines offered for that model year that had a different timing…to show how "expert" she really was she could have elaborated on that a little more.
    Still extremely funny and mostly accurate.

  16. One thing made no legal sense that was not mentioned, the pictures Joe Pesci is using to blackmailed Marisa Tomei to date him would not be permissible in court

  17. Suppose that, like the scene above at the beginning, the police officer pulled me over as driving on my own, and being deaf, I cannot decipher a bloody word that the police officer is saying? While he is there yelling his commands to my rear while I need to lipread? The police officer cannot hear me say "I am deaf ; I cannot understand you" (or more correctly with a speech impediment lol. I am actually deaf, so there!). Would the police officer shoot me just because I am apparently and unintentionally 'refusing to comply'? That would be stupid, wouldn't it? What am I supposed to do in such a situation, other than hoping that the police officer finally realises that he is talking to a deaf driver? Write a sign? lol. Just wondering, LegalEagle. What do you say?

  18. You didn’t grade the part at the end when Joe Pesci asked the sheriff to run down a lead for him. I was told that under no circumstances will the prosecution or the police help out the defendant even if it that help led to proof of innocence.
    Is that true?

  19. LOVED your dissection here of what makes for great cross examination. I also love Law & Order and Sam Waterston is my favorite Asst DA on that show. I must say, though, that I am rarely impressed with cross examination on that show. Occaasionally, however, it DOES achieve greatness. There was one occasion where Sam Waterston references Orson Wlles in The Thrid Man in an impromptu cross examination that was brilliant. I was wondering what you thought of that show and of cross examination on that show, especially.

  20. This may be one of your best videos. Well done.

    I'd like to suggest what may be your next theme of videos: "What Crimes Were Committed? and the first movie you do be The Wizard Of Oz". I am not a lawyer but it seems to me as we go through it there would be:

    Accidental Manslaughter

    Illegal entry of an animal without proper medical records.

    Theft of property (The West Witch's late sister's slippers; now the West Witch's property)

    Accessory to theft.

    Verbal Assault/threats of violence/actual violence

    Endangering a minor. (Glinda sends Dorothy out along on a dangerous mission)

    Theft of apples

    More assault and battery

    Hiring an assassin/Incitement to murder. (The Wizard KNEW the only way to get that broom was for them to kill the witch!)

    Conspiracy to assassinate a political leader during peacetime.

    Endangerment of a minor

    Kidnapping

    More assault and battery.

    Illegal entry

    Unintentional Manslaughter (Witch Melting)

    Theft of a broom (That solder had no right to give Dorothy that broom)

    I think everybody is going to prison except Toto! Oh wait, he did bite Miss Glump.

  21. 2019 , and only now does Legal Eagle do a analysis on the film ‘My Cousin Vinny’ !

    ….But worth the wait ! 🧐🇬🇧🤔🤓👍🏻🤝❤️❤️❤️👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻

  22. Dayum. When I finally get into a police application process, I might hit up Indochino for them oral board duds.

  23. 8:52
    Me: "With 3 eyes, he better had seen something!"
    Judge: "Bailiff, please remove juror number 7 from the courtroom."
    Me being forcibly removed from sight: "Hehehhehhehworthithe-eeehehe.."

  24. What Joe Pesci's character does with the eyewitness is actually even smarter than what you explain. The tiny little point he makes right at the end, where he asks the witness to count the bushes and then has to correct him because the witness miscounted, is pure dynamite. A smart juror would pick up on the fact that the witness couldn't even correctly identify the number of bushes obscuring his view of the defendents, therefore how can we possibly trust his account of what happened beyond those seven bushes? The witness says he saw two guys – is he sure it wasn't four? Or zero?

  25. I saw a Lawful Masses video where this movie was sighted in a court of appeals case. Novato Healthcare Center v National Labor Relations Board. Look up and read that opinion. It is great!!!!

  26. I love this movie. Marissa tomei is so good and beautiful in this movie. She's definitely one of my favorite actresses, i wish we could see her more in the MCU Spider-man movies.

  27. Objection! The best line of the movie was not included.
    "That was a lucid, intelligent, well-thought-out objection. Overruled."

  28. My dad is a judge and he quotes it to the younger lawyers all the time bc they generally haven’t seen it and the older guys get a kick out of it. Anyways a hotshot 20 something year old is being a bit of an ego dickhead and makes a big objection, and my father goes “mr.so and so that is a lucid, well thought out, intelligent objection. Overruled. And to this day all the bailiffs and judges make fun of this guy for it

  29. With vinnie disproving the eye witnesses and the prosecution not having the murder weapon. Would they not have to drop the case due to a lack of evidence?

  30. Is it illegal not to wear a suit? Does a judge really have legal authority over the way people in his courtroom dress?

  31. In your analysis at the end you say that Vinny just graduated law school. Incorrect! He'd graduated 6 years before. After he graduated he was ". . .studyin'. . .for the bar." (Six times was the charm!)

  32. Sidebar: Keep Wintergreen Lifesavers in your pocket while in court, even the smell of Wintergreen can prevent you from becoming sleepy.

  33. I've wondered, and Vinny seems like an appropriate place for the subject, about one lawyer attacking another lawyers credibility being acceptable. Many years ago, I was in an auto accident and was found to bear most but not all the fault. The other person in the accident later tried to sue for more money. My insurance company appointed lawyer as one part of his defense actually put the opposing counsel on the stand and attacked their credibility. The fact that they advertised on tv, and particularly what the mascot of their firm was. It was Mickey Mouse, implying that they were a Mickey Mouse operation. They really came across as ambulance chasers, but I wondered about that mode of defense, of "If they hired These guys". It seems like a bit of an ad hominem attack. That wasn't their whole case or even a large part of it. The vast majority was about the actual events of the accident

  34. Indochino actually sounds really helpful I will probably get my next suit from there thoe i dont know the next time I’ll actually need a suit

  35. Is it ever appropriate to call the Judge "Judge" to his face? I always say "Yes your honor" "No your honor". Some people say Yes judge no Judge.

  36. I'm in a court reporting program in Chicago, and I have heard that a court reporter should always dress as well as the lawyers. I will definitely take a look at Indochino!

  37. What I didn't understand was what kind of foundation the prosecutor had to make. The FBI dude said he was working with the bureau for 18 years, and that he was working in some car related department. The only mistake the prosecutor made was that he didn't give Joe a name and a report. I don't see what foundation he had to make. The problem addressed should've been the one surrounding the fact that the prosecutor didn't tell the defense that this witness would testify. I'm not a lawyer or anything, so I'm probably wrong, but can someone please explain to me why am I wrong?

  38. "Don't lie to the judge".
    Haven't the FISA judges figured out they were lied to by Comey and the FBI about the Steele Dossier, to get warrants to spy on Trump people? It's hard to believe they haven't heard all the reports on the lies, and using the false Steele dossier, paid for by the clintons. Don't these judges care that they were PLAYED by the FBI and Clintons? Don't they care that they were bamboozled? Do they like being made to look like fools? Why haven't these judges gone after the people who exploited them?

  39. I have a question during Mona Lisa Vito's testimony and she was asked if her statement was an opinion or fact you said it was an opinion but if what she said was true and correct how is it not a fact?

  40. so… if they robbed the place, they obviously was able to find evidence in their car, right?
    like the stolen cash and goods?
    a gunshot was heard so obviously they found the gun in the car with their prints on it, right?
    when they where stopped they was in a hurry to get away as you would expect from armed robbers who just recently shot and robbed a store, right? no? what do you mean no?!
    you do at the very least have evidence besides highly dubious vittnes testimony, dont you? what do you mean no you dont?
    you mean you did not compare the tire treads, you did not check if the car model in question is even capable of leaving such marks, you did not find the weapon/you found the weapon but did not check if their prints match the ones on the weapon/you found a weapon in their car but did not check if it matches the bullet found on scene, you did not find the stolen money and goods, you did not even check for gunpowder residue on their hands?!!?!?!

    why are we even in this court right now?

    oh right, i forgot, they accidentally stole a can of tuna because he put it in his pocket because his hands was full and just simply forgot about it, so obviously they paid for the things in their hands, shot the clerk with a gun they clearly did not have, just so they could get away with accidentally stealing a can of tuna that the clerk never even noticed…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *