My Cousin Vinny : In real life, would the case have been dismissed?

As soon as Vinny discredited all the prosecutions witnesses? At that point in the case, the prosecution had nothing more to go on(Trotter didn't hear back from George Wilbur until later than night).

Nah, it's still in trial. This is just evidence the defense is countering.

Then wouldn't there be an acquittal, the defense only has to cast doubt, which he did, maybe the prosecution woulda got some home cooking, but to discredit all the eye witnesses, a conviction seems unlikely

Just because the defense is dismantling the prosecution's case doesn't mean the Judge will dismiss the case and even though the DA can request to withdraw the charges (like Trotter did after Sheriff Farley's testimony), he's hardly likely to start a case and not let it go to the jury, even if he knows it's 99% definite there will be an acquittal, provided he still believes the defendants are guilty.

The defense can make a motion to have the case dimissed if it believes the prosecution hasn't met the minimum standard of the burden of proof, but there has to be a substantial reason for this (ex. in the case of a single eye-witness testimony, the witness recants or doesn't show up, or, it is now known/shown that the incriminating evidence was illegaly obtained).

The whole point of the Prima Facie case is for the prosecution to show the judge that the prosecution has evidence to present that, on the balance of probabilities, a jury could convict beyond a reasonable doubt. If the judge isn't satisifed, he can dismiss the case before it went to trial. In fact, in some jurisdictions, a Judge can with-hold his Prima Facie rulling until after the Prosecution rests and never let it go to the jury, or indeed over-turn a jury's verdict (but these are rareties I believe, extreme rareties).

I think Vinny stood a good chance of getting the case dismissed at the pre-trial hearings when Trotter first introduced his 3 eye-witnesses had he cross-examined them like he did during the trial and poked all those holes in their testimonies. However, the boys' 'confessions' would be more difficult to tackle, but Vinny could have argued (or indeed, would have, if he were a seasoned attorney), that since the boys weren't expressely told what it is they were being charged with, that the Miranda rights were effectively afforded to them nd therefore any admissions they made were inadmissable.

---

but Vinny could have argued (or indeed, would have, if he were a seasoned attorney), that since the boys weren't expressely told what it is they were being charged with, that the Miranda rights were effectively afforded to them nd therefore any admissions they made were inadmissable.

---

You mean that the Miranda rights were not afforded to them, correct?

No, the Miranda rights were afforded to then, just incorrectly. Remember when Sheriff Farley went in to speak with Macchio for the first time, he specifically asked him "Have you been made aware of your rights?" and when Macchio confirmed he had, he continued "and you 're willing to waive those rights?" to which Macchio added "yes, and I'm willing to sign a statement or anything that will help get this over with", or something to that effect.

So Macchio was obviously told he was under arrest and that he had a right to remain silent, to an attorney and that anything said could be used against him etc, but they neglected to tell him what the charge was. I'd imagine that that would fall under the heading of not effectively Mirandised rather than not Mirandised at all, but either way, the cops did make a mistake.

Sorry, I am still confused.

You stated in an above post:

---

Vinny could have argued that the Miranda rights were effectively afforded to them

---

Is this correct? Or is there a typo?

I had assumed that there was a typo. And without the typo, it should have read:

---

Vinny could have argued that the Miranda rights were NOT effectively afforded to them

---

Now I get you. I meant to right "WEREN'T". ;-)

OK. Thanks.

Also:

I can't imagine that you need to know the specific crime you are being charged with, in order to receive Miranda rights.

In fact, I assume that the police are simply gathering information in order to determine just what to charge you with. (Or, if to even charge you at all.)

They don't necessarily know the exact charges before hand.

Furthermore, the D. A. not the police "charges" the criminals.

Also, the specific charges "evolve" over time. So, at trial, let's say that a person might be charged with second-degree burglary, when they were originally charged with something higher (first-degree burglary). Then, at trial, the criminal can claim that he was only Mirandized for first-degree burglary, not second-degree burglary. That would make no sense. Such an interpretation would open a huge can of worms.

Plus: The criminal can confess to other crimes that the police are unaware of, before they had Mirandized the criminal. So, the police cannot offer specific charges in a Miranda warning about charges they (the police) did not know about (but the criminal later confesses to).

Example: The police arrest me and Mirandize me for the robbery of a store. They mention nothing about a murder of the store clerk. During the police interview, I confess and admit that I committed the murder. But, I had not received a Miranda about the murder. So, under your theory, later on, I can claim that the Miranda was ineffective for the murder. And I would "get away" with the murder. Unlikely. The police are not expected to know every crime before they start the interview of the criminal. That makes no sense at all.

The police interview itself is a tool of investigation. It is a tool to determine what crimes (i.e., which specific charges) if any were committed. The police can't know all of this ahead of time, before they even interrogate the criminal. That is why they are interrogating the (potential) criminal.

That's a good point about the crime itself when being place dunder arrest. Like you said, the charge could be changed later on by the DA, but I would think someone must have the right to know what they 're being arrested with.

Surely the Police can't just go around arresting people without telling them why. Can they simply say they are arresting someone because they suspect they have commited a (named) crime? Are there any cops on this board that can help us out?

I think you are confusing the roles of police with the roles of district attorneys.

Yes as a criminal you have a right to know what you are being charged with. Of course.

But that happens in court, at the "arraignment" or such. That is a court hearing, in front of a judge, where the District Attorney (the "State") must tell the criminal what he is being charged with.

I don't believe that the police have an obligation to tell you what you are being arrested for. And, again, even if they did I doubt that they are "held accountable" to that.

The police are simply there to arrest you. Not to make legal determinations of which specific charges the D. A. will select.

Also, the police are not lawyers. The D. A. is.

Also, imagine that a police officer arrests a guy who is drunk or high on drugs. The police officer can "explain" all he wants to the criminal. Clearly, the criminal will not understand a word that the police officer is saying. So, under your theory, the criminal who lacks capacity to understand must still be made to understand why he is being arrested. That makes no sense.

And, in fact, this is exactly why we have a court hearing, such as an "arraignment". To let the criminal know what's going on and what they are being charged with.

Color me surprised :-D

I never knew the Police could arrest someone without needing to give them a criminal charge of sorts. I understand what you mean about being drunk or high, but in the case of a sober person, I always thought the Miranda rights included a reason for their arrest, even if it is non-binding.

---

Color me surprised :-D

I never knew the Police could arrest someone without needing to give them a criminal charge of sorts. I understand what you mean about being drunk or high, but in the case of a sober person, I always thought the Miranda rights included a reason for their arrest, even if it is non-binding.

---

I am not a police officer, so I do not know for sure.

I am just using common sense and thinking of counter-examples that would undermine your "theory".

In this last post (above), you are conflating two different things: (1) a reason for your arrest; versus (2) official charges against you. Those are two very different things.

For item #1, the officer might simply say: "We got a call from your neighbor complaining about you." Or some such. That is a "reason" for the arrest. That is very different than the officer citing criminal charges.

My guess is that the police officers might and probably do offer "reasons" (but not official charges). And they probably only do that as a general "courtesy", not as a legal requirement. In most cases, I assume that it de-escalates the confrontation, rather than to escalate it.

If a person is being arrested, and the officer says, "Well, I have no legal obligation to tell you why", that will escalate an already tense (i.e., potentially dangerous) situation.

If the officer offers up some vague "reason" (such as "Your wife called us to complain that you were threatening her"), at least that will "appease" the arrested person.

I suspect it's more of a courtesy than any type of legal requirement.

And that courtesy works both ways (i.e., it benefits the officer by de-escalating a tense situation).

---

I always thought the Miranda rights included a reason for their arrest, even if it is non-binding.

---

If it were non-binding, what would be the point? And what purpose would be served?

A lot of detail is offered here, if you are interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning.

I am only posting the link for now. I will go and read through that info, when I have some free time.