The fascinating (and well conceived) thing about the eye witnesses in this case is that none of them were lying or were bad people. In fact, that is also true about all the other characters that were part of the trial.) They were merely lead to believe a certain story put forward by the prosecution and they believed their own stories. What Vinnie was able to accomplish through his own investigations was determine that those same witnesses had no genuine basis for believing that these particular boys were guilty. However, had those witnesses not have been reasonably good people, Vinnie would have had to do quite a bit more work to get the witnesses to admit that they were mistaken and were not certain about what they saw or experienced on the day of the crime.
Fortunately, I think in the movie world, we can safely subscribe to the saying, "The truth will set you free." The legal system might not always get cases right, and it's been infamous for letting guilty people go, and locking innocent people in jail. That being said, I don't think it necessarily accounts for the majority of cases. I can say, though, that we can't keep trying to build up a mistrust with the legal system. Even though it may not be out only arbitrary for the truth, it IS our only arbitrary for justice.
He didn't really have to get the witness to admit he was wrong. The questioning alone damaged the witness's credibility with the jury enough to start planting reasonable doubt.
The witnesses were brought to the stand by law enforcement and prosecution who convinced them of the defendants' guilt and who should have known better than to see their trumped up testimony as credible. The whole case was a witch hunt. It was the jury that was reasonable.
It's not mocking. He's walking a dim witness through questions and answers without being an asshole about it, confusing the witness, or talking down to him. Vinny took the witnesses as they were and adjusted accordingly. He's deliberate here, he's aggressive with the asshole, and he's sweet but firm to the gentle old lady.
What are these really big things RIGHT in the middle of your view from the window of your kitchen to the sack of suds...what do we call these big things?
I think Jimmy Kimmel did a better job than science. Lie-witness, indeed. Seriously, human observation is the lowest form of scientific evidence, while the courts take it as nearly 100% factual. Stunning.
well scientifically eye witness is the lowest form of validation our brain plays trick on us all the time ... even when you find the rare unbiased witness to come and testify after the age of 1 year your brain does shortcuts to gather information and store it more rapidly even if i see in front of me an asian person doing a crime and later on will need to identify him in a lineup i wont be able to cause of the perceptual narrowing the brain does .. just look at how many people are getting released from prison after they found out he was innocent due to dna testing 30 years after the case since dna testing were not around when the trials were taken place ... human brain is much more fucked up than you'd think and i guess that explains why people still think there is such a thing as god .. or even religion ... people are stupid and worst of all unaware of it
As funny as this scene is, it was brilliant. The first witness he discredited because the time was off and Vinny proved it. The 2nd had terrible eyesight and he proved that. The 3rd had a terrible view and he proved it. Then finally the jury thinks wait a second nobody actually seen THESE 2 guys leaving after the shooting. Then Vinny did one better and tracked down the real killers, caught with the same gun used to shoot Jimmy Willis in a similar car to his cousin and his friend. They did not even need a Not Guilty verdict bscause the DA was overwhelmed with enough fact fo immediately and outright DISMISS ALL CHARGES. Brilliant.
@@saljpal3 I wouldn't call them a stupid, hick town - they upheld the law, and were fair with everything that was shown in court. The jury wasn't going to convict no matter what, they were taking the trial seriously and were just looking to see what each side's case would be. Same with the judge. All the people involved were doing the best they could with what was presented to them. When Vinny gives a perspective they hadn't gotten before, they do the fair, and intelligent thing and take it in to consider it. Vinny presents a great case, but as a contrast, so did Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird - only his town actually *was* the stupid hick town and they convicted the defendant anyway.
Don't forget the tire expert. While he could prove the tire pattern use from tires that Ralph had on his car, it was then proven that they where the most common model in the most common size
@@bobdole4916 True, but that's really the most fictional aspect of this whole story. To Kill a Mockingbird was much more true to life in this sense, though I personally like that this movie is able to construct moral dilemma and drama out of disparate people who are all fundamentally acting in good faith. Impressive writing.
Although to be fair, there are some moments in court that are worth a chuckle. Recently in the Paul Manafort trial, the judge (who is actually very reminiscent of the one in this movie) had called a three hour recess, and when he ended it the judge asked the prosecution for their next witness. The prosecution responds "You mean the jury?" as they had not been brought in yet.
I love how polite and respectful Vinny was with Mrs. Riley. He knew that proving that her eyesight was that poor would embarrass her. Going about it in that quiet, gentlemanly way averted the risk of alienating the jury for humiliating her.
I think it wasn't part of the script. I think the producers wanted the actors to act serious. But when the Bailiff laughed, they probably decided to keep it knowing the Audience would laugh at this scene!
Really hilarious that I typed in "seven bushes" and exactly the video I wanted came up, meaning that someone thought this was as hilarious as I think it is xD THANKS for the upload
CLASSIC! Oh love it, and Joe pesci, boy, they don't make Good movies like this no more do they! Thanks for sharing this, im turning back to the olden" days comedy, oh nothing beats it!!!! :)))
Could you imagine if they replaced this Joe Pesci with the one from Casino or Goodfellas? There would be a bunch of dead witnesses and lawyers floating in the creek… 😂
I love this movie.Joe Pesci is funny.The director chose the suitable actor for the movie.And that Marisa Tomei,she blends in the movie.She's cute,good acting.
I just love, LOVE how he just flat out dismisses the witnesses once he's done with them. "I got no more use for this guy "I'm finished with THIS guy" Just flat out destroying their claims in such a casual manner, it's just beautiful.
Not even a 100 years ago they're still releasing innocent ppl who were convicted based on eye witness testimony & police corruption like falsifying evidence or coercion
It's true, things are more reliable now than they were 100 years ago. But the difference isn't as dramatic as many would believe. Human biases are STILL not properly calibrated for and politics and judicial discretion still leave gaping holes through which "justice" can slip through and escape. There are some who would rather not see a justice system that acquits the innocent -- or at least those who cannot be held to account because the state didn't prove its case to a strong enough level. The problem is that the public, high and mighty as it often is, wants to see *someone* caught, and it often doesn't give a damn who. I'm a lawyer. I've seen horrible things because your basic average person does not appreciate logic and has to be slapped in the face with obvious demonstrations such as in this movie to spell out clearly that eye-witness testimony is about as reliable as the word of a coked up wino. To advance my point about human biases and politics still playing a point, you often have to fight like hell in order to request the court order a DNA or blood test or even consider a third party test of blood samples at the scene of a crime, usually at tremendous cost to the client. Why? Short answer, fear of embarrassment. If the prosecution is "in too deep" at that point, you bet your sweet bippy it will do what it can to save face.
Loved it when the judge found him in contempt the second time. Vinny under his breath there's now there's a real fucking surprise. I've used that almost got in trouble once. I'm from the north but next time I go into a restaurant in order grits I will always think of that movie
With such a great line of questioning, that even if the witness said "yes" to being able to identify the defendants, his testimony has already been discredited
I've been watching a few clips of this movie (thanks algorithm). This scene started and I was like, "oh! This is a funny scene! I remember..." then Marissa Tomei flashes on screen in that blue dress for a few seconds and I forgot what fingers spell.
The last question is critical, legally. Each eyewitness expressed reasonable doubts about the veracity of what they saw for various reasons. Which puts their answers on the record for appeal.
Should have been a mistrial. We have the right to a speedy and public trial with a jury of our peers. The two yutes had older people on the jury. Average age easily in to their 50's! Should have been yutes on the jury!
