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…
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
This essay will compare and contrast the protagonist/antagonist's relationship with each other and the other jurors in the play and in the movie versions of Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men. There aren't any changes made to the key part of the story, but yet the minor changes made in making the movie adaptation produce a different picture than what one imagines when reading the drama in the form of a play. 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
“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).
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.
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
... 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.