My Cousin Vinny : If you were on the jury.

Let's say Vinny didn't spot the tire tracks and Lisa's testimony never transpired. Did the prosecution, in your view, present evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the boys were guilty? OK I realise that in reality these cases take a lot more into account evidence wise and Lisa's testimony was for dramatic purposes but just for fun take it in the context of the film. Trotter had no murder weapon, Vinny discredited the accuracy of the eyewitness identification of the perpetrators and in one case proved that at least 20 minutes had elapsed between a mint metallic green convertible arrived at and left the store. The tires on the car were a popular model and as we find out so was the colour.

The only piece of evidence that seemed to be against them was the confession but the transcript of the interview (we know there was one because the Sheriff read from it in court) would have made it a possibility in my mind that Stan had misinterpreted the situation. Remember we're talking reasonable doubt here.

So Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury! What say ye?

Your's sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

Were I sitting on that jury, I'd have to vote "Not Guilty". The prosecution didn't prove anything at all. Not one of the witnesses for the prosecution was able to stand up to cross examination by the defense. Even the expert witness, who merely proved that the rubber left on the road was made by the same brand and size tire as was on the defendant's car, still didn't prove the marks were made by his tires. His testimony would only have been relevant if the other witness testimony wasn't shaken and would only serve to support the other witnesses accounts of the incident, had they not been torn apart by Vinny. In my opinion, even without Lisa's testimony, witch resulted in the dismissing of the charges, the jury would have to return a "Not Guilty" verdict if they were permitted to deliberate.

Certainly Vinny had established 'reasonable doubt' with most of the witnesses.

Vinny coming up with exculpatory evidence and indirectly, the real killers simply convinced Trotter to dump the case before it went to a verdict.

================

4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.

If I was on the Jury I lived where they held the trial. The defendants were from the north they supposedly killed someone from the south. So I would fry them.

Hey doowop on June 14 Dion is appearing at the Beacon theather here in NYC. He never appears in the city it is alway on the sland atvWestbury.

So see you there

/thread.

I work in criminal law in Australia, and I've long ago given up on predictions on how a jury will go. There have been cases where I've believed that the prosecution hasn't come close to proof beyond reasonable doubt and secured a conviction; and others where I've thought the evidence was conclusive but a not-guilty verdict was delivered.

In our system of law the deliberations of the jury are sacrosanct and forever made secretive from the public. I understand that's not quite the case in the USA, but for us the whys and why nots are kept in the dark forever. I'm quite sure that, despite the impassioned directions from judges to conform to a juror's oath or affirmation, in some cases the jury is swayed by strong individual or group personalities away from their official directions. I'm absolutely sure that less-assertive jurors can be swayed by their alpha fellow-jurors into verdicts they may not otherwise have reached.

I've wondered sometimes about the validity of jurors deliberating in solitude. It probably isnt feasible.

Me personally? I don't know. I think that's the great success of this movie, that the evidence hung on a beautiful balance favouring the State before Mona's revelation.

Seems a moot point in this case, since another county sheriff caught the actual offenders, and it would have eventually become apparent that it was a case of mistaken identity with Stan and Bill.

I am Salthead

As much fun as Liaa's testimony was, in reality, the prosecution didn't prove a thing prior to that. Each of the witnesses' testimony were proven to be inaccurate on cross examination. And the "Expert" witness only affirmed that the defendant's tires were the same make and mode of the rubber left on the ground when the murderers made a hasty getaway. However, even that testimony didn't directly tie the defendants to the crime since the tires were the most popular sold. Had Lisa not testified and the jurors actually deliberated the case, logically, they should have come back with a not guilty verdict. But as you said, nothing is for certain in court.

Until that happened they totally seemed guilty, no question.

---

Until that happened they totally seemed guilty, no question.

---

Good for you. Because they were revealed to be truly innocent (and not just found "not guilty), movie fans will state categorically that the prosecution didn't prove anything.

When I saw this the first time so many years ago, I distinctly remember believing that the boys were being framed because the evidence was so damning. All the eyewitnesses identified the boys, the peculiar car they were driving, etc. Later, when even the tire tracks and rubber compound matched the boys car, who wasn't wondering what the hell was going on?

Other than the murder weapon being missing, the prosecution had them. In fact, even the prosecuting attorney believed they were guilty until the Vinny/Lisa/Tempest scene.

In the real world, would they have been found not guilty? Who knows. They had Casey Anthony, and 12 morons acquitted her

---

It is bad to drink Jobu's rum. Very bad.

---

Well if you remember, the real reason that Lisa's testimony was so neccessary and effective, was because the judge was doing the background check, and suddenly not only did Vinny have to win the case, but he had to win the case in the next 3 hours.

Lisa's testimony got the prosecution to formally drop all charges in that time frame. In the end it was moot, but still.

Thank you beanos that's spot on. The fact that it has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make is obviously neither here nor there.

Yours sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

Yeah Vinny say's 'You're in Ala-fckin-bama, you killed a good old boy, there's no way that this was never going to trial'. Vinny knew it would go to trial on the basis that, as you said, it was a tight knit community no doubt prejudiced against two Italian American New York boys but I mean in a neutral situation there was nothing to convict.

There's a moral to this story Del Boy but for the life of me I can't find it!

Did you ever have jury duty? The last time I did most of the other jurors were middle aged and elderly Archie Bunkers eager to convict anyone for anything. I was so glad the case was settled before the trial began because I was not looking forward to serving on a jury with those people.

From a strictly legal perspective, Vinny discredited all of the eyewitnesses very effectively. At the very least, this provided reasonable doubt.

However, that misses the whole point of the film. The point was that two cocky New Yorkers (and their smug lawyer, to boot) never stood a chance in that small hick town. That jury was going to vote guilty, no matter what. The evidence itself was just a formality that the jurors needed to pay lip service to. The whole thing was a kangaroo court and there's no way those Southern rednecks were going to let the smug New Yorkers get away with "this". Not to mention, those jurors (and the Southerners in general in the film) certainly did not seem very bright or worldly. They were far from being critical thinkers.

Just look at how the judge himself (supposedly the most impartial player of all, within the court) treated Vinny. He kept over-ruling all of his objections, even the valid ones. And he kept throwing him in jail for contempt of court. And so forth. The judge and the prosecutor were in bed together. The prosecutor had the judge in his pocket.

So, the two boys were found guilty well before the trial even started.

If you were to combine all three testimonies and how Vinny showed major holes in all of them, there's no reasonable person that would say guilty. Then again, most people are stupid.

There certainly is no shortage of absolutely outrageous verdicts, for both convictions and acquittals. It's interesting how you 're supposed to be judged by a jury of your peers, when in reality, most of the times those 12 people couldn't have any less things in common with the defendant.