Tweet
Opening Statements in My Cousin Vinny
Cross posted from Frederick Leatherman Law Blog.
It’s Saturday Night
A respected criminal lawyer was delivering his summation to the jury in a missing body homicide case.
“Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury,” he said.
“In exactly 10 seconds when the clock over the door in the back of the courtroom strikes 12, the alleged victim in this case will open that door and walk into this courtroom alive and well.”
He counted down, “10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0″
He turned and gestured to the back door. “You can come in now,” he said.
The door did not open.
He faced the jury.
“Every one of you looked at the door and you would not have done that unless you had a reasonable doubt.”
The jury only deliberated for about 20 minutes when the foreperson sent a note out to the bailiff advising that the jury had reached a verdict.
After the jury returned to the courtroom, the foreperson handed the verdict to the bailiff, who handed it to the judge.
“Will the defendant please rise,” he said.
Then the judge read the verdict,
“We the members of the jury find the defendant Guilty of the crime of Murder in the First Degree.”
The lawyer and his client were devastated.
After the defendant was removed from the courtroom and taken to jail, the lawyer approached the foreperson and asked,
“How could y’all convict my client after every one of you looked at the door?”
“Well, we found him guilty because he was the only person in the courtroom who did not look at the door.”
Although the video is 15 minutes long, it’s rolling on the floor funny.
Check it out.
28 Comments
“2 yutes”
“What’s a Ute?”
Don’t know how Fred Gwynn kept a straight face.
Car 54 Where are You?
Hey, Mason. Good to see you hear.
I can’t watch the video ’cause there’s a movie on here, so, I’ll have to watch it later. Meaning tomorrow morning. But, it sounds funny and I look forward to starting tomorrow with a chuckle.
Here.
Maybe I just should have said good to hear you see. Ha.
Hope you enjoy it.
It’s one of my favorite films of all time.
I’m glad to hear I can see, too.
The first time I saw that lawyer’s opening statement, I literally fell on the floor laughing. And Fred Gwynn, RIP, I don’t know how in the hell he kept a straight face for that scene. Funniest courtroom scene ever.
Hey, Mason, just want to say that I am enjoying your law refreshers in re GZ/TM. The folks at FDL who are reading along will have a much more educated understanding of whatever happens. And I’m thankful for that. You’re doing good work here. Thanks.
Thanks — best movie ever made. See the whole thing if you haven’t already. Tragically, Fred Gwynne was dead the following year (1993) at age 66.
Thanks, Dearie.
Feels like I’m back in the saddle preparing for trial, only this time I get to share the experience with everyone here and provide an insider’s view of the process.
Fun for me and fun for y’all too, I hope.
This is a fascinating case to work with because it’s quite a whodunit kind of thing with bizarre twists and turns and forensics too.
Like I just figured out that the bullet hole in the hoodie sweatshirt TM was wearing does not align with the entry wound in his chest.
I’ll be writing about that tomorrow and explaining what it might mean.
Who could ask for more?
Jumpin’ Jiminy! I see this has been Main paged/Late Night.
Muchas Gracias!
Another favorite scene:
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Mr. Gambini, the next words out of your mouth better be “guilty” or “not guilty.” I don’t want to hear commentary, argument, or opinion. I don’t want to hear any facts or evidence. If I hear anything other than “guilty” or “not guilty”, you’ll be in contempt. I don’t even want to hear you clear your throat to speak. Now, how do your clients plead?
Vinny Gambini: [intimidated, but the words go right past him] I think I get the point.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: No, I don’t think you do. Now you’re officially in contempt of court! Would you like to say something else and go for two counts of contempt of court?
Vinny Gambini: Not guilty?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Thank you. Not guilty plea has been entered for the record. Probable cause hearing will begin tomorrow at noon. Bail for both defendants will be set at $200,000. Oh and bailiff, take Mr. Gambini into custody with them… and set his bail at $200 for one count of contempt of court.
What you say is all true, Mason, of course, and I share with you, I openly admit, that sense of favoritism.
Let us not forget, however, that the true importance of this case is in the nature of the unexpected expert’s testimony … about undeniable but “obscure” and thus, little known facts …
Those unfamiliar with the movie, I shall leave in … suspense.
;~DW
I am thoroughly enjoying it. The networks pay $100K+ per year for this level of commentary.
Boxturtle (Now, for his take on the lastest in the GZ trial, we go LIVE to the Hogans alley dumpster..)
No, the networks pay for a far inferior level of commentary.
Hilarious scene! Now I want to see the movie.
A serious question for FDL’s own legal beagle:
When was the last time a person on trial was truly judged by a jury of their peers?
Is the reality as opposed to the concept of a jury of one’s peers ever really possible, or is this just another brand of opiate for the groundlings to keep them in line?
Thanks again for the memories.
A peer means a fellow citizen and no one that I know of recently has challenged a jury venire as not being a group of their peers.
People are summoned to serve on juries via random selection from lists of registered voters and people who have driver’s licenses.
Jury service is considered a civic duty and necessary for the fair administration of justice.
I believe in and support the right to jury trial. I think trial by jury is vastly superior to trial by judge because most judges favor the prosecution, especially if they are elected.
They ain’t been knock knock knockin’ on my door.
Thanks for the compliment.
Thanks for the compliment.
The cross examination scene of the eyewitness is pretty funny too.
“I think trial by jury is vastly superior to trial by judge because most judges favor the prosecution, especially if they are elected.”
In a Socratic vein or artery you have exposed an extremely interesting dialectical face to the theory of a fair trial:
Since all things between heaven and earth spin on the gimbals of ignorance, superstition, politics, and money, in the final analysis can there realistically be an emotionally uncontaminated, disinterested evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the guilt or innocence of an individual whether judged by an elected/appointed official of the Court or a group of undereducated, under informed, and innately bigoted and therefore prejudiced citizenry?
Or, is it a question of this is the best we have come up so far, and if you can find a better mouse trap have at it?
It always nice to have a legal expert on call.
Thanks, once again.
Laugh out loud funny — a swaggering lawyer who stutters. What a concept! One of our favorite movies. Remember also that Marisa Tomei got an academy award for her later testimony as an “expert” mechanic. That scene is one of the best in any movie and still stands up — a must see and see again. Thanks for the laugh after a dismal Wall Street and Big Bankers week. I don’t know how many noticed, but the NYTIMES business section this past week was like a crime rap sheet for private enterprise, mostly financial. And the Rethugs want those people to have free rein. Unbelievable.
Spoken like a true cynic.
Characterizing all jurors as “a group of undereducated, under informed, and innately bigoted and therefore prejudiced citizenry,” bares little resemblance to the truth.
I don’t know where you got that idea because my experience was completely different.
I haven’t had as much experience as most of you, but my one experience with jury selection was disturbing. I was called to jury duty a few years ago. I was assigned to the jury pool for a medical malpractice case. It was an awful case. A relatively young woman went into the hospital for a biopsy of a mass that turned out to be benign. During the procedure, she was not only overdosed with anesthetic, she was also not monitored for some length of time. As a result, she was a vegetable. She had a husband and children. There was no question that there had been malpractice, the only issue was who was to blame. There were about 8 defendants, each with his/her own lawyer, and two accusors (I’m blanking on the term), each with lawyer. There were about 100 of us there all day, being questioned in the jury room. Periodically, the lawyers would all go to a room across the hall with the judge and some of us would be called in and questioned individually. In between, those of us waiting in the hallway could hear the lawyers screaming at each other. At the end of the day, only 3 people were selected from the group of 100. These three people were distinguished by obviously very low levels of intelligence. Everyone who showed any evidence of a well functioning mind was rejected. I know that this is not generally true, but it was certainly true for this particular jury. I wonder how many days it took to empanel a full jury.
“Spoken like a true cynic.”
“The cynics are right nine times out of ten.” H.L. Mencken
Or,
“A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin.” also H.L.Mencken
Or,
“Jury: a group of twelve men who, having lied to the judge about their hearing, health, and business engagements, have failed to fool him.”H.L. Mencken
“A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers.” H.L. Mencken
And,
“And what is a good citizen? Simply one who never says, does or thinks anything that is unusual. Schools are maintained in order to bring this uniformity up to the highest possible point. A school is a hopper into which children are heaved while they are still young and tender; therein they are pressed into certain standard shapes and covered from head to heel with official rubber-stamps.” again H.L. Mencken.
And to round out this romp with Henry Louis,
“The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence.”
I would like to believe your observations about the members of a jury, but I am a rabid, true believer cynic and dare not notice small cracks in my otherwise perfect evaluation of the world.
Aye! Well said, Cynic!
Sorry I missed your comment and it has inspired me to write a new article about jury selection. I can’t answer your question in a comment because it’s too complicated.
Basically, I can tell you that the lawyers were striking jurors, as opposed to selecting them.
Sounds to me like they were exercising peremptory challenges where they do not have to give a reason for the challenge. However, each side gets a limited number of peremptory challenges and it sounds like that number must have been expanded for this case, perhaps due to its nature and the number of parties.
Still seems odd.
Also, there’s a principle in medical malpractice cases that allows the plaintiff to recover against the entire surgical team, jointly and severally, because she cannot specifically identify the responsible party due to her injury when they are just pointing fingers at each other.
That principle should have been applicable in that case.
Do you know if the case settled at the last minute? That often happens in cases like that.
I don’t know the outcome of the case. I did a bit of searching online but didn’t find it. I’m curious now.
Does the principle you reference hold in every state? Some of the defendants were not responsible (surgeon, etc.) but there were two anesthesiologists (for some reason, the first one had to leave during the procedure), residents, the hospital.
Anyone who showed a spark of intelligence or capability for critical thinking was rejected, then. I remember one young man who was an economist. He was asked whether he understood the concept of present value of future (lost) income. He said that of course he did. He did not make it onto the jury. Another potential juror was a middle-aged nurse who had been a charge nurse in a hospital for years. She asked for clarification on a question in a way that made it clear that she understood how a hospital works, the relationship between the residents and attending staff. She was rejected. When I was asked what I did professionally, I gave a one-sentence description in layman’s terms. One of the lawyers said something like, “Whatever that means.” Later, a woman was asked whether she would be able to understand technical material. She answered that she didn’t know, she didn’t understand what “that lady” (me) said. She was one of the three. The people who made it never questioned a lawyer’s premise. They were of demonstrated low intelligence and had compliant personalities.
Oh, and no reasons were given for rejecting any of us. At the end of the day, the judge came in and talked to us in a very friendly way. He told us who was accepted, and joked about the rest of us being rejected. He said about me, “You know too much.” To a man he said, “They didn’t like your pants.” There were a few more humorous comments in that vein, but we were never told who had rejected us or why.