objection over ruled
-
JohnSmythe — 9 years ago(May 15, 2016 11:59 AM)
I don't think that can be the case. In criminal cases the prosecution has to present its prima facie case, this includes all evidence they reasonably could have discovered during their initial inverstigation and preparation. The prosecution can't argue "there's no way we could have found this out at the start". They had all the opportunity they needed to conduct scientific testing and chose not to on the strength of the rest of the evidence. It was only when Vinny started tearing all their witnesses apart that they realised they hadn't even established reasonable guilt, much less guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't just start adding more and more evidence you never mentioned before hand because you started losing. It's not fair to the defence.
Had this evidence been impossible or exceptionally difficult to discover because of circumstances (for example a witness from out of town who was visiting on the day comes forward months later realising they had seen or heard something pertaining to the case) they would have still faced an uphill battle to get it admitted. We may not like it, but in criminal cases the odds are (and should be) stacked in favour of the defence and against the prosecution.
It's more likely the objection would have been upheld as it is an ambush and requires the defence to change its entire strategy on the fly with no leave to question the veracity of the testimony. This wasn't some layman's attempt to dazzle the jury, it was a scientific report from an FBI expert. That alone would carry a lot of weight with the jury and would require a lengthy break in the trial to allow for Vinny to get his report examined by someone of equal standing in the field and report back to him and if he found flaws, call them as a witness and prepare them for testimony and cross-examination.
Allowing the testimony is dubious at best, but not allowing the defence adequate time to counter it is a definite grounds for appeal. It doesn't matter if Trotter tauned Vinny with it the night before, he still hadn't actually seen the report and Trotter never submitted it during discovery.
Trotter could argue that he originally put the request in before going to trial and only just received the results (which would be a flat out lie as the FBI expert was there in the morning to testify, ergo Trotter had arranged for him to attend and obviously prepped him to some extent) but that would still not guarantee its admissibility and certainly not mean Vinny would only have a lunch break to try and discredit or challenge it. -
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(May 15, 2016 12:09 PM)
Yes, all that you say is probably very true.
The problem is that this is a Hollywood movie. Not a legal documentary on criminal procedure.
Hence, 99.99% of the points you made would be "lost" on the typical movie-goer. It would all go "right over their heads". They would neither understand nor care about this legal minutiae. It has nothing to do with the enjoyment and/or comedy of the film. Which is why the audience chose to see the movie in the first place. For enjoyment and comedy, not to be "schooled" on the legal minutiae of criminal procedure in Alabama. -
JohnSmythe — 9 years ago(May 15, 2016 12:43 PM)
Agreed. I realised the 'technical' flaw years ago, but that never kept me from enjoying the film every time I watched it (and still watch it). At the end of the day, it's a hilarious film with great acting and incredible dialogue. We can forgive the film-makers for taking liberties with the procedural rules when the result is Lisa's testimony
-
JohnSmythe — 9 years ago(May 15, 2016 12:57 PM)
If the writers adhered to all of the "technical" legal rules, the film would be as fun (and funny) as watching paint dry.
Indeed. Have you watched any of the OJ trial footage on youtube? It is horrifically boring to have to sit through. Law & Order really had great writers to pull off such a fascinating spectacle. -
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(May 15, 2016 05:25 PM)
I remember watching the OJ trial live, as it happened, back in the 90's.
I think that's when Court TV was just getting started.
And they would televise the entire trial, live, each day.
At the time, it was a big deal (letting cameras into the courtroom).
Yes, a lot of the OJ trial was deathly boring: forensics, DNA, science, etc. -
JohnSmythe — 9 years ago(May 16, 2016 09:48 AM)
No one wants to be bored with, umm, evidence. Especially scientific evidence that one can barely understand.
And that's when you get the CSI effecr and people who go to far, thinking a straight up purse snatch should have the Holy Trinity of DNA, fingerprints and hair follicles.