Surprise Expert Witness
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — My Cousin Vinny
JosephASpadaro — 10 years ago(November 07, 2015 08:20 PM)
The prosecutor was very cocky. And he was cock-sure of having a slam-dunk case.
Why, then, did he spring the surprise (of the expert witness) at the very last minute?
He had to have secured this expert quite a while back, in order for the expert to conduct all his tests, etc. So, the prosecutor had plenty of time to notify the defense (as was his legal obligation to do so).
Plus, the prosecutor felt that the FBI expert was un-impeachable and added great credibility to the prosecution's case.
In other words, the prosecutor never entertained the thought that there was some second mint-green color car out there in the world. So, he was not worried about that scenario. (Even though that turned out to be the case.)
So, why did he feel the need to spring a last-minute surprise witness on everyone?
Obviously, it was great for "drama" and making a dramatic scene play out for film-making purposes. But, why did the character of the prosecutor act in this manner? -
doowop14 — 10 years ago(November 10, 2015 08:22 PM)
During the dialogue between Vinnie & Trotter on the phone, Gambini reminds the prosecutor that he has to notify him of all evidence and witnesses. Trotter replied that he just got the evidence. He didn't actually spring the evidence at the last minute. He got the evidence at the last minute.
-
JosephASpadaro — 10 years ago(November 10, 2015 09:59 PM)
Thanks. I will have to re-watch that scene. Now that you mention it, it does vaguely ring a bell.
Nonetheless
The expert witness would have to study evidence, reports, etc. It would take a while. He can't really come on board at the last minute. (In real life, of course. Not necessarily in "movie land".) -
transmentalist — 10 years ago(November 10, 2015 11:14 PM)
Actually (sadly), it's possible especially if the judge is elected
This would be an obvious error, allowing a surprise expert witness when the tire tracks were visible from the date of the crime
But the defense would have to appeal the conviction to have that error reviewed by a higher court. If they could get acquitted, there's no chance of appeal.
(not that an acquitted defendant is likely to go on complaining of course)
This sort of thing happens all the time -
franzkabuki — 9 years ago(September 24, 2016 02:50 PM)
I'm obviously missing something here, but why would the prosecution even try to prove the tyre marks belonged to the defendant's car? It's understandable that the defence would want to show they belonged to another car, but prosecution wouldn't seemingly gain anything from proving the marks were indeed left by the defendant's vehicle as, of course, nobody had ever denied they were there in the first place. Suppose it could be argued that the marks were left by a car speeding away in a hurry - as a car driven by the killers would have been - but that's not exactly what one would call conclusive evidence as many a folk take to the road that way, not just the ones trying to outrun the law.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan -
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(September 24, 2016 02:58 PM)
I don't understand your question.
The tire mark places the defendant's car at the scene of the crime.
Isn't that important and relevant?
Critical, even.
nobody had ever denied they were there in the first place.
If I recall correctly, the two college students did not testify at the trial. So, they never "admitted" that they were present at the scene of the crime. -
franzkabuki — 9 years ago(September 24, 2016 07:33 PM)
"So, they never "admitted" that they were present at the scene of the crime".
No I don't think it was ever specifically stated (not after the initial police interview when they didn't know what crime they were suspected of, anyway), but when Vinny is questioning one of the witnesses, he tries to get him to admit that it's possible there were actually two pairs of "youts" that entered and left the store around the same time. Which suggests he does not aim to convince the court his clients never visited the place at all
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan -
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(September 24, 2016 07:44 PM)
Yes, I agree.
But legally speaking the prosecutor has to "connect all the dots" for the jury.
So, he has to place the defendants (and their car) at the scene of the crime.
The two youths never testified in court (in front of the jury). So, they never admitted to being at the scene.
Therefore, the prosecutor has to prove this fact for the jury. That's his job: to prove all of the important facts. And it's an important fact to place the two defendants at the scene of the crime.
but when Vinny is questioning one of the witnesses, he tries to get him to admit that it's possible there were actually two pairs of "youts" that entered and left the store around the same time. Which suggests he does not aim to convince the court his clients never visited the place at all
A lawyer cannot deliver testimony as evidence in a trial. In other words, a lawyer can never act as a witness in the trial for their own clients (i.e., the lawyer cannot provide testimonial evidence). Everything the lawyer says in court (before the jury) is considered "argument" (that is, "persuasion"). But it is not evidence. Those are two very different things.
In any event, yes, I agree. No one was working under the assumption that the two college boys were denying being at the scene. Nonetheless, the prosecutor has the duty and obligation to place them at the scene and to prove that point to the jury's satisfaction. Especially given the fact that the two defendants did not testify as to their whereabouts on the day in question. -
gary_w_trott — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 06:31 PM)
Nonetheless, the prosecutor has the duty and obligation to place them at the scene and to prove that point to the jury's satisfaction.
Many many years ago when I was in high school one of my uncles, who was a lawyer, came with my aunt to visit us. He told us about a case in which he successfully defended a peeping tom who had been caught on the property in question. The prosecution never entered into evidence that the property didn't belong to the accused. With that being the case there was no evidence that the accused had been on someone else's property and the judge ruled the accused as not guilty. That is why Trotter spent so much time on the tires and tread pattern. Without that they could not show that the boys' car rather than just some other green car had been at the store. -
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 07:44 PM)
That's quite an odd case that your uncle mentioned.
I would have assumed that at the trial, the prosecution would put the victim on the stand. And the victim would testify that he/she saw the peeping Tom looking in the window (or whatever). And that the victim owned the house or the property upon which the peeping Tom was lurking around.
That's quite an odd case that your uncle mentioned. -
gary_w_trott — 9 years ago(February 04, 2017 07:04 PM)
The peeper must have been seen by someone in another house or a passerby who called the police. You are correct if someone inside had seen him their testimony would have shown ownership or residency of the house.
-
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(February 06, 2017 06:42 AM)
Good point!
What an odd case.
Too bad that the Peeping Tom got away with it, though.
But, I am quite sure he will be at it again and, sooner or later, he will get caught again.
I doubt that Peeping Toms do this once and then stop. I assume it's a recurring behavior.