Jonathan Lynn’s film My Cousin Vinny (1992) follows the journey of an amateur New York lawyer as he takes on his first murder case. Although the inexperienced lawyer has yet to win any cases considering it took him six tries to pass the New York Bar exam, he is determined to win the case. The plot follows the main protagonist, Vincent (Vinny) LaGuardia Gambini, and the development of his legal analysis through the murder case he assigns himself after his younger cousin and his friend, Bill Gambini, and Stan Rothenstein are falsely convicted in the state of Alabama after they mistakenly confess to first-degree murder and accessory. Throughout My Cousin Vinny, irony and comedy portray Jonathan Lynn’s rendition of legal proceedings and the fragility …show more content…
For instance, when two college students, Bill and Stan, are mistakenly arrested for the murder of a store clerk, the police officer on the scene fails to read them their Miranda Rights, a mandatory requirement during an arrest. This immediate occurrence in the film introduces the notion that Lynn is ironically illustrating the delicacy of the criminal justice system, showing that it is not as impartial and righteous as it claims to be. Vinny's lack of knowledge of judicial procedures and professional decorum further emphasizes Lynn's commentary on the American court system. During court, Vinny lies to Judge Chamberlain Heiler that he has credible courtroom experience and blatantly disrespects him, which results in the judge holding him in contempt of court. Moreover, Vinny fails during …show more content…
The primary goal of the court system is to uphold the fundamental individual rights of all members of society, which includes providing those who violate the law with a fair trial. A pivotal scene in My Cousin Vinny is when the prosecutor, Jim Trotter III, makes preliminary remarks to the jury. Throughout the film, Trotter does not characterize himself as an antagonizing prosecutor with personal biases toward Vinny. Instead, he only aims to lock away two teenagers he believes murdered an innocent store clerk. During Trotter’s preliminary remarks, he makes it known that the jury will make the final decision on the case of Bill and Stan, showing that he has no ulterior motive to manipulate their decisions but only to provide evidence. This scene demonstrates one of the court system's greatest strengths: upholding an unwavering commitment to justice and maintaining law and
The first chapter of “Law in America” by Lawrence M. Friedman is an introduction to the formation of the law system that we have in the United States today. The opening of the chapter depicts how Freidman starts his lectures, by reading the front few pages of the local newspaper to his very lethargic students who take his early class. At first, this seems odd given that this is not a political science class or media lecture. However, the logic behind this process is that in every “domestic” article in the news there is a connection to the law. Law is intertwined in almost every situation we face during, not only our day to day lives but also the very structure that forms the environment we live in.
The United States Criminal Justice system has a unique way of approaching and handling criminal trials. In criminal trials there are important court room members with specific roles and certain court room procedures that must be followed. The court room members include the jury, the judge, the prosecution, and the defense. Some of the procedures of a criminal trial are arraignment, preliminary hearing, the trial itself, opening statements, direct examination, cross examination, closing arguments and the verdict. Each court room member’s goal is to fulfill their responsibility and to help justice be served.
Steve’s lawyer, Miss O’Brien, must prove Steve’s innocence to a biased jury so that Steve will not have to have his whole life ruined. Because Steve is a black juvenile on trial for felony murder and even though is innocent, Steve and his lawyer must prove him innocent in the
One of the wrongfully convicted she introduces to her readers is Thomas Sophonow, an innocent civilian “accused of murdering a young waitress” simply because of his physical description coincidentally matching the culprit’s description but more importantly, the procedures that took place when the witnesses were provided with images of possible suspects was outrageously flawed due to faulty witness memories. While Sophonow was eventually acquitted after serving four years in prison, Commissioner Peter Cory says Sophonow is “psychologically scarred for life” as he had to face the four years of suffering in prison and also carry the burden of being wrongly labeled as a criminal as he reintegrates with the rest of society. Sophonow’s co-workers shows evidence of fear against him as they believed he is a “murderer who had gotten off on a technicality.” At a Christmas party, his family would be left isolated from the rest of the co-workers also for the same reason. Loftus wants her readers to be aware of this situation and how it has harmed a family psychologically.
Jonathan Wayne Nobles was not truly rehabilitated. Some individuals thought him to be rehabilitated, but others saw through his bogusness. From the examples that will be given; they will show how Nobles was just “faking it, to make it”. His actions, religion, and attitude show it all.
David Feige’s Indefensible: One Lawyer’s Journey nto the Inferno of American Justice invites people from all walks of life to a second hand experience of the criminal justice system hard at work. What is most interesting about Feige’s work is its distinct presentation of the life of a public defender in the South Bronx. Instead of simply detailing out his experiences as a public defender, Feige takes it a step further and includes the experiences of his clients. Without the personal relationships that he carefully constructs with each of his defendants, Feige would not be able to argue that the criminal justice system is flimsy at best, decisions always riding on either the judge’s personal attitudes or the clients propensity towards plea bargaining.
Ladies and gentleman of the jury I would like to introduce Richard Ramirez, a man wrongfully convicted of being guilty. The first murder that Ramirez is accused of is the murder of Jennine Vincow. However, that crime could have been committed by Jennine Vincow’s son, Manny Vincow. Jennine Vincow and her son were having a dispute in New York that lead to her moving to Los Angeles where this brutal murder took place. It is the defense’s contention that Manny Vincow committed the crime and that Ramirez is innocent.
This detachment within the Juror, ignoring the life of another person, and choosing not to vote without spending the time to discuss the situation, which may have ended up with the unjust death of an innocent boy. Juror 7 immediately brushes off the severity of the situation, relating to a matter of “anything” when it is in fact anything
In a testament to both his own stubbornness and loyalty to the guilty cause, Juror #10 rebuffs every argument made by the not guilty party. Equally important, Juror #3 is willfully obtuse to the revelations made by the other jurors, marking him as the twelfth and final juror to vote not guilty. In the end, it takes the other men demanding his line of thinking for him to finally declare “not guilty” (Rose 115). Juror #3, being the main antagonist, is stuck in his pessimistic mindset and refuses to change his decision regarding the defendant’s fate. At times, it’s clear he is blowing off rationale for the sake of maintaining his guilty verdict.
The U.S. justice system is a concept that has come under scrutiny many times over the 200-plus years of its existence, but which still exists in much the same form today as when it was first devised. “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a theatrical drama that portrays many of the merits and faults of the jury-based judicial system. Some of the pros that are shown include how the input of many different people and backgrounds can result in a greater truth being uncovered, and how the voice of even a single man can be heard and considered by all jury members. Some cons that the play illustrates include how there can instances in which jury members merely go with the immediate popular opinion on the verdict, whether because they are susceptible to peer pressure or merely because they’d rather the case be over with as quickly as possible. Rose himself seems to be generally in favor of the current U.S. justice system, as the characters who represent the negative aspects of the system are shown to be hateful and irrational men, while the opposite is true for the people who represent the system’s more positive qualities.
While it may not offer any easy answers, it serves as a powerful reminder of the need for continued efforts to create a more just and equitable society. The author's treatment of this central question highlights the complexity of the issues at hand and the need for a multifaceted approach to addressing them. It also underscores the importance of individuals taking action and working towards a more just and equitable society. One of the most powerful aspects of Just Mercy is the way in which it presents the stories of individuals who have been wronged by the justice system. These stories are at times heart-wrenching, but they also serve as a powerful reminder of the resilience and strength of the human spirit.
The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar
Juror Ten announces his intentions very early in the play. He speaks loudly and forcefully from the beginning, clearly showing his racism and prejudice towards the boy. Juror 10 quickly votes guilty and asserts that the defendant cannot be believed because “they’re born liars”. Additionally, he claims that the “kids who crawl outa those places are real trash.”
Therefore, he tried to make the trial go faster by voting with the side with the most votes. My family in the real world also had to go through inconvenience of the jury duty. My cousin had her first prom and my Aunt got called for jury duty. She couldn’t help her daughter do her hair, makeup, and get pictures. My moms friend also had a conflict with the jury duty.