Lessons From 'My Cousin Vinny'
There is much to learn from the movie, including how to deal with a hostile witness and how to effectively examine an expert. The movie has as much potential to educate as it does to entertain.
September 14, 2018 at 02:28 PM
4 minute read
We recommend that all young trial lawyers watch the movie “My Cousin Vinny.” In fact, seasoned trial lawyers can learn much from watching this film. The better the trial lawyer, the better the appreciation for the skill and effectiveness of Vinny Gambino's (Joe Pesci) direct and cross-examinations of various witnesses, including his spunky fiancée, the so-called expert on auto mechanics, Mona Lisa Vito (Marisa Tomei), who gets “voir dired” by the prosecutor with a trick question.
The 1992 movie was ahead of its time. There is presently a movement afoot in trial law to move away from Irving Younger's 10 Principles of Cross-Examination that mandates asking only short leading questions and never asking a question to which one does not know the answer. This new method of cross-examination was detailed in a brilliant, recently published book called “The Fearless Cross-Examiner” by Patrick Malone. Malone argues that there are times when it is more persuasive (and less annoying) to use non-leading questions when conducting a cross-examination. He also recommends sometimes asking questions to which one does not know the answer. When speaking across the country about this new method, Malone uses one of Vinny's cross-examinations to demonstrate the effective use of this method.
In cross-examining witnesses, Vinny does not just use short leading questions. For instance, when cross-examining the elderly eyewitness who wore thick-lensed glasses, Vinny does two things brilliantly. First, he makes physical use of the courtroom by having the witness hold the end of a measuring tape and by walking with the tape in hand to a location in the courtroom that the witness indicates is the same distance that she was from the crime scene. Second, as he stands at that location in the courtroom, Vinny does not ask a leading question like “I am holding up two fingers, aren't I,” which would make him sound like a jerk in the presence of this sweet, frail witness. Instead, he asks a nonleading, respectful question, “Mam, how many fingers am I holding up?” Of course, she cannot see to answer.
With another eyewitness, the middle-age gentleman who was making grits, Vinny's examination is again masterful. As with all great witness impeachments, the first thing Vinny does is he gets the witness to commit to his previous testimony about how long he had observed the defendants were in the store (five minutes) which the witness knows because that is how long it took him to make breakfast. Vinny again effectively uses an open-ended question: “How do you know?” He then points out the absurdity of that testimony because the witness was cooking grits, and it takes “the whole grit-eating world 20 minutes to cook grits.”
Vinny then uses sarcasm to get this point across, “Were these magic grits? I mean, did you buy them from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?!” He then asks another open-ended question: “Are you sure about that five minutes?” When he doesn't get a straight answer, he does not move on as many trial lawyers would, especially those who use scripted cross-examinations. Instead, he fearlessly presses forward over opposing counsel's objection and the judge's instruction to lay off the witness; he has the witness—by now crestfallen—finally admit “I may have been mistaken.”
Again with the final eyewitness, the middle-aged diminutive man with a thin mustache, Vinny decimates the witness with a number of nonleading questions, asking him to name things that appear in photographs in view from the window where he had observed the crime scene. The witness names a series of impediments to his view of the crime scene. Vinny then combines all of the impediments the witness had named into one final question that casts serious doubt about the witness's testimony that he had seen the defendants at the crime scene—doubt that the witness admits having himself.
There are many other lessons to be learned from the movie, including how to deal with a hostile witness (his fiancée) and how to effectively examine an expert (again his fiancée). The movie has as much potential to educate as it does to entertain.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Stormy Daniels 'Hush Money' Trial: Donald Trump Should Be Very Worried
7 minute readShining a Light on Opposing Hate: The Palestinian Protesters Who Defended New Haven's Menorah
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Immigration Under the Trump Administration: Five Things to Expect in the First 90 Days
- 2'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
- 3NY District Attorneys Are Still No Fans of Revamped Misconduct Watchdog
- 4ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Israel's Prime Minister Over Alleged War Crimes in Gaza
- 5Attorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250