Plot Holes?
-
JosephASpadaro — 10 years ago(November 09, 2015 08:46 PM)
Yeah, that's hardly the least realistic part of the movie.
You may have noticed it's a comedy, not a documentary. Comedies tend to take liberties with realism.
Yes, but even so those two situations were not unrealistic in the least. In fact, they are quite common.
The two situations being: (1) the two boys being housed in the same cell and/or same prison; and (2) the two boys being tried in the same trial, alongside one another. -
doowop14 — 11 years ago(October 26, 2014 09:52 PM)
Bill & Stan weren't convicts so they weren't, technically, sent to prison. They were detainees. Although they were housed in a prison, because the jail had been condemned, they were still entitled to all rights and privileges of detention inmates. Because they were being inappropriately housed, it's logical to assume that there was little room in the prison for detention inmates. That being the case, housing them together wouldn't be that much of a stretch.
Secondly, there is nothing in Criminal Procedure Law that prohibits crime partners from being tried together. As a matter of fact, it's more usual for co-defendants to be tried together. Separate trials are more likely when one or the other is turning state's evidence against the other. Either way, there is absolutely no requirement for co-defendants to be tried separately. -
mikeyg24 — 11 years ago(October 26, 2014 10:11 PM)
Correct, one of the most famous trials of the last century was that of The Manson Family, of which members were tried as co-defendants.
There's a moral to this story Del Boy but for the life of me I can't find it! -
There_Is_No_Sayid — 10 years ago(September 08, 2015 10:05 AM)
On the second point, defendants can absolutely be tried together for the same crime. Hoever, I think that defense attorneys often like to try their clients separately because that forces the prosecution to prove all the elements of the crime over again. In the death of Freddie Gray, for example, the efense got the trials severed because the defendants were facing very different charges.
-
JohnSmythe — 10 years ago(September 11, 2015 11:27 AM)
I think it depends on the jurisdiction. In some states or countries, they might require a murderer to be tried separately from the accessory because it could unfairly prejudice the latter, whilst in others they might allow for it in order for the jury to get a more rounded view of the crime and all its elements.
-
JosephASpadaro — 10 years ago(November 09, 2015 08:50 PM)
I think it depends on the jurisdiction. In some states or countries, they might require a murderer to be tried separately from the accessory because it could unfairly prejudice the latter, whilst in others they might allow for it in order for the jury to get a more rounded view of the crime and all its elements.
Sometimes, the two suspects will be tried together, but there will be two separate juries (one for each suspect). In fact, this happened with the murders perpetrated by the Menendez brothers (Lyle and Erik). -
ShooShooFontana — 10 years ago(October 10, 2015 07:28 PM)
Another scenario of not severing the trials of two defendants is when 1 defendant actually committed the crime but there is no definitive evidence to conclude which one did, thereby creating reasonable doubt and causing a jury to find both defendants 'not guilty' merely because there's no way of knowing which of the two is actually guilty.
-
JosephASpadaro — 10 years ago(November 09, 2015 08:36 PM)
First of all, I love My Cousin Vinny. I also realize it is just a movie, so it is not always going to be realistic. I don't know if the following examples are actually plot holes, but there were two things I really found unrealistic.
When Bill and Stan are taken to prison, they most likely would not be put in the same cell. If anything, they would probably be taken to different prisons.
The other part that would never happen is they would not be on trial together. Being that they were in on the "murder" together, they would have to have separate trials. I'm not an expert on the law, but am I right about this?
Thanks for any responses you can give me!
Actually, you are wrong on both counts.
(A) There is no "problem" in putting them in the same cell. And there is no problem in putting them in the same prison.
What you are probably thinking of is this. When two people are
arrested
at the same time - or police think that they are in cahoots in a crime - then, the police will make sure to separate them. They do this so that the two criminals (or suspected criminals) don't get the opportunity to discuss the case together and to "get their stories straight". The police then interview the two suspects separately, to find inconsistencies in their versions of events.
(B) Criminals suspected of the same crime (that is, co-defendants) are tried together (at the same trial) all the time. All the time. Remember the two Menendez brothers, Lyle and Erik? They murdered their parents, and they were tried together.
Also:
As stated above, you are wrong on both issues. Even if you were correct, however, I don't believe that these are plot holes. They might be "goofs" (mistakes made by the film people). But they are not "plot holes", which usually means a missing fact or element that does not make sense within the perspective of the story-line or plot.
For example, it can be questioned (and it has been) as to how Lisa would ever know that Vinny used the fake name of Jerry Callo. She knew about his using the name Jerry Gallo, but he never told her about the "Callo" variation that Vinny was forced to choose. (Unless, of course, he did this off screen.) So, Lisa never knew that Vinny's fake name given to the Judge is "Callo". Yet, she asks Vinny's mentor and friend, that New York judge, to provide a glowing report (resume) for a Jerry "Callo". How could she do that, if she had no idea that Vinny was now going by "Callo"? That is a plot hole. An unexpected contradiction that does not "fit in" with the plot. -
xerox_10 — 10 years ago(November 21, 2015 08:15 AM)
Also something very important and inaccurate is that they were charged for first degree murder and the D.A. did not had any proof of the planing of the murder, they should have been charged for second degree murder, this is very inaccurate to lawyers.
-
JosephASpadaro — 10 years ago(November 21, 2015 09:04 AM)
Also something very important and inaccurate is that they were charged for first degree murder and the D.A. did not had any proof of the planing of the murder, they should have been charged for second degree murder, this is very inaccurate to lawyers.
You don't need proof of "planning" the murder, in order for it to be first-degree.
Probably, you simply need "pre-meditation" (which is different than "planning").
One can (spontaneously) "pre-meditate" a murder, without a whole elaborate plan in place ahead of time. In other words, the killer can pre-meditate the killing/murder in an instant, in the blink of an eye. In the very second or two before he decides to shoot the gun.
Also, it is possible that that state (Alabama, I think) defines first-degree as a murder that occurs during a robbery (or some such). In this case, the D. A. alleges that the murder took place during the course of the guys robbing the Sack-of-Suds convenience store. -
JosephASpadaro — 9 years ago(April 18, 2016 09:36 PM)
That's what I said in my above post.
I said:
Also, it is possible that that state (Alabama, I think) defines first-degree as a murder that occurs during a robbery (or some such). In this case, the D. A. alleges that the murder took place during the course of the guys robbing the Sack-of-Suds convenience store. -
mabostic — 10 years ago(December 04, 2015 11:36 PM)
lol some of these people are so rude! OP- I would like to apologize for anyone being a jerk to you on this post. Chill guys- it's just a message board about movies.
You can tell the people with attitudes are dudes that live in their moms house not getting laid. Go out and have an attitude with people in real life you guys!
#vaginasdoexist