I mean obviously the judge here did ask "and why is it a trick question", but they really should be more proactive at stamping out trick, bullshit questions.
This was the first R-rated movie I watched with my Mom and Dad. I have never laughed harder in my life. Great bonding moment with my parents and a movie I watch regularly and with great fondness.
Sinead O'Connor protested against proven sexual abuse of children by the catholic church on SNL, and then he responded saying he would have physically assaulted her.
I am a parent and I discovered that kids need to be trusted to learn to be trustworthy. If you go out setting traps for them, they will never feel trusted and will just try harder to deceive you and resent you for it. Kids lie. You can tell when they do and build lessons around it. No need to create stumbling blocks for them.
She doesn’t create traps. She asks them about something already knowing the truth. She wants them to know that they will get punished more if they lie. If they tell the truth then depending what it is, they’ll get a talking to.
Not quite, It's "Never ask a question you don't already know how the witness will answer." It's a subtle but important difference; and a lot of the pre trial stuff is done so both sides already know what the witnesses will say when questioned.
They absolutely do use this in law school - mostly to teach evidence. It's a fantastic (albeit not perfect) example of the basic rules of evidence. It was one of the few legal movies (by the time it was released) to actually hire (and listen to) lawyers as consultants for the script
Dad was a lawyer and he loved this movie. Always said Vinny's opening statement was exactly what you wanted to say in a defenses opening and the exactly wrong way to say it.
They did a similar thing with me in medical school!! They had us watch Critical Condition with Richard Pryor to learn how to be a Doctor, very informative stuff to be found in Pop culture.
Yes they do. Source: my law degree from Liverpool JMU. They used it for 2 things: how to deal with adverse witnesses and the bit where he doesn't ask for bail because he knows they won't get it, and asking will just piss the judge off.
This is right up there with a high school science teacher of mine using Monty Pythons' Holy Grail as an example to show the scientific method in practice, then let the rest of the movie play out for the rest of the class period
Nah, this was my Astronomy teacher, lol. Had a life size cutout of Darth Vader when you walked into his classroom. From was filled with Dr. Who, Star Trek, and other Star Wars refer8
Hey, if the information you want to tech is accurate and you can make it memorable... It may not have been the most 'efficient' way to teach, but it would have been quite 'effective'.
Yep. I did my law degree in Liverpool, England and they used it to show us how to deal with adverse witnesses, and for the bit where he doesn't ask for bail, because he knows they won't get it and asking will just piss the judge off. I've never practised in criminal law, so I haven't dealt with witnesses, but I have been in the second situation. We (the law firm, but not me) had fucked up and we knew it. We were definitely getting costs awarded against us, and how much was down to the judge. The
Slip n fall personal injury. You might go to court once in a hundred cases, I mostly went to court for ones where the claimant was a minor (cos you HAVE to). Did P.I. for about 7 hellish years and I don't think I ever had to deal with a witness statement, never mind a witness in court.
Makes sense, I suppose they all settle, or else many facts are agreed or not contested. I specialise in Employment, and about half my cases run, and statements are done on far more than that. It's so long since I did anything else, I was legitimately scratching my head over this!
When I say one in a hundred cases, I mean maybe one in a hundred that actually go anywhere. When it comes to court, because of costs, you've got to be VERY sure you're going to win, and the other side have to be equally sure THEY'RE going to win. Oh, and technically, all claimant's statements ARE witness statements, but you know what I mean. I got to watch a huge amount of CCTV of people falling over and I laughed at a LOT of them.
Also, I learned a while back that car insurance companies don’t like going to court, so most of those cases settle. The witness statements amount to calling witnesses who had contact info taken down at the scene and recorded in the police report, and that’s mostly confirming the details already record in the police report. My personal injury case was settled out of court just before the court date - and my lawyer was the only one who would have gone to court if they hadn’t settled, not me.
I haven't been in the legal profession for a while, but I would have thought you'd have to go to court. What was the point of disagreement with the settlement? Was it for the injuries or the car, storage, hire?
client had a big long involved story they wanted to tell, and we didn't let her cos it had no bearing on the case, and wasting the judge's time would have annoyed him and he'd have hammered us on costs. We got away with relatively low costs, but the client was so angry the barrister and I had to keep telling her to wait until we got outside so she didn't get in trouble for disrupting the other courts.
I had that happen once in a small claims court case. The plaintiff basically decided that we were at fault for every petty grievance she'd suffered in the last year, because we were supposedly lying about our professional credentials. (not a client, mind. Just someone who decided we were lying online and sued us over it) The judge asked her point blank, "what are you suing FOR?" Her response was to dramatically point at us and declare, "THIS!" The judge: "...What is "this?"" Her: "...This?"
The part where you have to do certain things in a certain way "not to piss off the judge" is terrifying. It's supposed to be the justice system, fair and about law, not about his fucking emotions.
You've never read anything about sentencing guidelines have you? That is an area of the law that can be all over the map legally which is entirely dependent on the mood of the judge at the time and how they feel about the accused. Sometimes it's entirely about sending a message to other would be criminals if the case is high profile enough.
There was a study done showing that just after lunch got the most favourable outcomes, while those just before lunch got the worst....apparently justice may be blind, but it definitely gets hangry.
Indeed. But laws must be adjudicated by humans, because robots cannot appreciate nuance, remorse, or concepts like doing an illegal thing for a good reason. So there will always be a human element involved.
Well, the concept of a "plea bargain" is also horrifying. For a bad enough crime (murder etc) you might be forced to either confess to a crime you didn't commit and spend a decade in prison OR gamble on getting the maximum sentence and never ever being a free man again because you demanded your constitutional right to a jury trial and "wasted everyone's time."
Cash bail also sucks and compounds that issue. Cant make bail for 10k? Well I guess you sit in jail for weeks until the trial, hope your employer doesnt fire you and you got enough money laying around to pay bills/rent. OOORR you can plea guilty and be fined for 2k. And the public defender might be overloaded with cases depending on where you get charged so good luck preparing a good defense if you do decide to go to trial
The other one is that, in the USA, the police do not have to tell you ALL of the charges you are/may be facing. If you're told you're under arrest for stealing a handbag, you might not want a lawyer, and if you've been arrested for similar offences multiple times, you might even admit it, even if you didn't do it, just to get the process over with and get released. And THEN the police hit you with "you pulled the victim off her feet, she hit her head and died"
There's no better way to do it. You can have all the rules and regulations you want but they'll never fit perfectly to every situation. You need a human in the chair capable of dispensing mercy when possible and the hammer when required. Also, the judge would be "pissed" in this situation because the lawyer would be wasting the court's time and the judge would be trying to discourage that. It's not just about whether the judge had their coffee that morning.
boxbackknitties
....Howevuh...
Justdontdothat
Such a good movie.
Nikolai5
I mean obviously the judge here did ask "and why is it a trick question", but they really should be more proactive at stamping out trick, bullshit questions.
PinkEater
forthosewhoarehomesick
This was the first R-rated movie I watched with my Mom and Dad. I have never laughed harder in my life. Great bonding moment with my parents and a movie I watch regularly and with great fondness.
NicolasKevinMac
This is the third time in as many weeks that this scene has made front page; and each time, more of the original frame has been cropped off.
DoctorSniffles
"You put your little deer lips to the water......"
pyaremohan
DarkfireDragon
ElbowDeepInUserSub
"full barrel"
malachilenomade
I don't even know anything about cars and was thinking "Wait, that can't be right..."
DrLOAC
I know. Four barrel would have made sense.
TheBlueMuppet
Don't trust AI to subtitles your shit, lol
TheBlueMuppet
Or your phone not to autocorrect a word into its plural.
charondaboatman
One of my favorite fun movies. Goonies is up there, too.
texasredheadguy
Big Touble and Little China
charondaboatman
*in. Yes, that one, too.
texasredheadguy
Lol, I gotta quit drinking
AlGoonie
I can get even further up there if you want
jgjgjgjgjgjgjg
"Great shades of Elvis!"
evoroadster
This is one of those movies that you can't pass up watching just one more time.
mcoulter876
I had it muted and could still hear that accent
whysguy5242
HeywouldJablowme
Still a world class milf.
MrCheesebiscuit
Which movie is this?
PrizmRed
My Cousin Vinny
slotheroll
PourMeAPuppersPlease
Joe pesci is a scumbag, RIP Sinead
ChaosInherent
Aw man, what'd joe pesci do?
PourMeAPuppersPlease
Sinead O'Connor protested against proven sexual abuse of children by the catholic church on SNL, and then he responded saying he would have physically assaulted her.
Lazarillo
Best thing about such high resolution is being able to see the actor playing bailiff losing it in the background.
chackstar
never noticed that before! haha!
moffit
thank you for pointing that out, it made me realize you can hear him trying to contain his laughter too
ChazzK
Pardon my accent your honor. YouT-THS.
Joejitsu
Talk greasy to me.
Ultratoxic
Aunt May you sexy minx! Stop making me fall in love with you!
VinnyVeritas
Be still my heart ! No, not the car geek trivia... Marisa Tomei makes tumescence matter
ActualTttony
The grit
BurlRavenscroft
People give her and/or the academy crap for winning an award for this but she’s the only nominee whose work stood the test of time
huey9k
COUGHCOUGH Joe Pesci COUGHCOUGH
AndNowForSomethingCompletelyDifferentdk
You mean Leo Getz?
spookymormonhelldream
Anything you want? Leeeeeo.... Getz
BurlRavenscroft
I meant supporting actress nominees she won against. Obviously I am not besmirching Herman Munster…
FatBastardVegetarian
Thanks for clarifying.
TinyLiehon
Hey look, that's Superman's boss!
AvatarDownvote
Judge Herman Munster
treyACommentHero
That’s a classy lady, right there
qorogh
FOUR barrel, you idiot captioner.
Munchman347
Lawyer Rule #1, 'Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to...'
sircowdog
He knew the answer. He just didn't think she would too.
TheBlueMuppet
He thought he knew the answer, lol
L4dead2
My wife does that with the kids to see if they will lie
ArcaneM37
Bet she gets lied to a lot. Digging holes for them to fall into is not helpful.
L4dead2
No it works. She gives them the opportunity to tell the truth to see if they’d lie. I take it you’re not a parent
ArcaneM37
I am a parent and I discovered that kids need to be trusted to learn to be trustworthy. If you go out setting traps for them, they will never feel trusted and will just try harder to deceive you and resent you for it. Kids lie. You can tell when they do and build lessons around it. No need to create stumbling blocks for them.
L4dead2
She doesn’t create traps. She asks them about something already knowing the truth. She wants them to know that they will get punished more if they lie. If they tell the truth then depending what it is, they’ll get a talking to.
SumOneElse
Not quite, It's "Never ask a question you don't already know how the witness will answer." It's a subtle but important difference; and a lot of the pre trial stuff is done so both sides already know what the witnesses will say when questioned.
Munchman347
Are they some kind of mentalist? How can they predict how a witness will answer unless they coached them?...
redsmerf
The funniest thing about this movie is apparently they use it in law schools to teach how to cross-examine a witness.
Tyrsblade6
They absolutely do use this in law school - mostly to teach evidence. It's a fantastic (albeit not perfect) example of the basic rules of evidence. It was one of the few legal movies (by the time it was released) to actually hire (and listen to) lawyers as consultants for the script
Tyrsblade6
Source: me - a lawyer who studied scenes from this film in law school
SonnyVabitch
OBJECTION! The witness cannot be expected to incriminate themselves.
Lampmonster
Dad was a lawyer and he loved this movie. Always said Vinny's opening statement was exactly what you wanted to say in a defenses opening and the exactly wrong way to say it.
Jewdakris
I would love to voir dire that witness
Sypurist
acuteavocado7
someone say vore???
turdswindler9000
They did a similar thing with me in medical school!! They had us watch Critical Condition with Richard Pryor to learn how to be a Doctor, very informative stuff to be found in Pop culture.
turdswindler9000
"Well no wonder. It's an '82 model, these should've been recalled."
donkeymoney
It's simply a matter of what movies are popular when the professor was growing up.
Ivalicenyan
If that's what you think is the funniest thing about the movie is then you haven't seen the movie
redsmerf
Oh, about the movie. Not the funniest thing IN the movie.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Slappydupappy
Okay there sparky calm your singular tit
SoberAndBored
Yes they do. Source: my law degree from Liverpool JMU. They used it for 2 things: how to deal with adverse witnesses and the bit where he doesn't ask for bail because he knows they won't get it, and asking will just piss the judge off.
MCEscherWasADouchebag
So.. they do?
transference
They absolutely do. Mine did, at least.
Lun4ticH1gh
They also use it to teach court protocol & decorum.
Akurei00
"Everything that guy just said is bullshit!"
astrangehop
You also learn a fair amount about grits.
OnionCutter
This is right up there with a high school science teacher of mine using Monty Pythons' Holy Grail as an example to show the scientific method in practice, then let the rest of the movie play out for the rest of the class period
HobbstheTiger
Yours did that too?! Best science class ever
OneCraftyHooker
Did you have me for earth science? Because I definitely used that scene to teach the scientific method as well 🤣
OnionCutter
Nah, this was my Astronomy teacher, lol. Had a life size cutout of Darth Vader when you walked into his classroom. From was filled with Dr. Who, Star Trek, and other Star Wars refer8
Vortexhelios320
Hey, if the information you want to tech is accurate and you can make it memorable... It may not have been the most 'efficient' way to teach, but it would have been quite 'effective'.
HedonistBeard
Non-effective methods of teaching are non-efficient, so I think perhaps a quite effective method will be the most efficient.
Nykidemus
"Yes yes, the oral sex!"
ThrowAwayAcct0000
My high school always fast forwarded that scene.
DrClaww
ItsMoreComplicatedThanThis
Which scene? =)
DartTarget13
One wood (pun intended) assume, if she floats... then.
ItsMoreComplicatedThanThis
💡ah, the "I got better" scene. Thanks, kind internet stranger!
SoberAndBored
Yep. I did my law degree in Liverpool, England and they used it to show us how to deal with adverse witnesses, and for the bit where he doesn't ask for bail, because he knows they won't get it and asking will just piss the judge off. I've never practised in criminal law, so I haven't dealt with witnesses, but I have been in the second situation. We (the law firm, but not me) had fucked up and we knew it. We were definitely getting costs awarded against us, and how much was down to the judge. The
TrustMeImADog
What field of law doesn't involve witnesses?
AufDerHut
Administrative law
SoberAndBored
Slip n fall personal injury. You might go to court once in a hundred cases, I mostly went to court for ones where the claimant was a minor (cos you HAVE to). Did P.I. for about 7 hellish years and I don't think I ever had to deal with a witness statement, never mind a witness in court.
TrustMeImADog
Makes sense, I suppose they all settle, or else many facts are agreed or not contested. I specialise in Employment, and about half my cases run, and statements are done on far more than that. It's so long since I did anything else, I was legitimately scratching my head over this!
SoberAndBored
When I say one in a hundred cases, I mean maybe one in a hundred that actually go anywhere. When it comes to court, because of costs, you've got to be VERY sure you're going to win, and the other side have to be equally sure THEY'RE going to win. Oh, and technically, all claimant's statements ARE witness statements, but you know what I mean. I got to watch a huge amount of CCTV of people falling over and I laughed at a LOT of them.
PainGwen
Also, I learned a while back that car insurance companies don’t like going to court, so most of those cases settle. The witness statements amount to calling witnesses who had contact info taken down at the scene and recorded in the police report, and that’s mostly confirming the details already record in the police report. My personal injury case was settled out of court just before the court date - and my lawyer was the only one who would have gone to court if they hadn’t settled, not me.
SoberAndBored
I haven't been in the legal profession for a while, but I would have thought you'd have to go to court. What was the point of disagreement with the settlement? Was it for the injuries or the car, storage, hire?
SoberAndBored
client had a big long involved story they wanted to tell, and we didn't let her cos it had no bearing on the case, and wasting the judge's time would have annoyed him and he'd have hammered us on costs. We got away with relatively low costs, but the client was so angry the barrister and I had to keep telling her to wait until we got outside so she didn't get in trouble for disrupting the other courts.
ArkoneAxon
I had that happen once in a small claims court case. The plaintiff basically decided that we were at fault for every petty grievance she'd suffered in the last year, because we were supposedly lying about our professional credentials. (not a client, mind. Just someone who decided we were lying online and sued us over it) The judge asked her point blank, "what are you suing FOR?" Her response was to dramatically point at us and declare, "THIS!" The judge: "...What is "this?"" Her: "...This?"
PackedCatMeowingPowerDensity
Yeah the court is the wrong place for rants best reserved for a bar counter.
Daemencer
The part where you have to do certain things in a certain way "not to piss off the judge" is terrifying. It's supposed to be the justice system, fair and about law, not about his fucking emotions.
bitemark
It's not supposed to be about your emotions either, which is why you avoid getting angry or yelling at the judge.
Anarchduke
Yes, and it is run by humans.
StellarJay77
You've never read anything about sentencing guidelines have you? That is an area of the law that can be all over the map legally which is entirely dependent on the mood of the judge at the time and how they feel about the accused. Sometimes it's entirely about sending a message to other would be criminals if the case is high profile enough.
fearghul
There was a study done showing that just after lunch got the most favourable outcomes, while those just before lunch got the worst....apparently justice may be blind, but it definitely gets hangry.
Corrodias
Indeed. But laws must be adjudicated by humans, because robots cannot appreciate nuance, remorse, or concepts like doing an illegal thing for a good reason. So there will always be a human element involved.
astrangehop
Well, the concept of a "plea bargain" is also horrifying. For a bad enough crime (murder etc) you might be forced to either confess to a crime you didn't commit and spend a decade in prison OR gamble on getting the maximum sentence and never ever being a free man again because you demanded your constitutional right to a jury trial and "wasted everyone's time."
Nefasi
Cash bail also sucks and compounds that issue. Cant make bail for 10k? Well I guess you sit in jail for weeks until the trial, hope your employer doesnt fire you and you got enough money laying around to pay bills/rent. OOORR you can plea guilty and be fined for 2k. And the public defender might be overloaded with cases depending on where you get charged so good luck preparing a good defense if you do decide to go to trial
SoberAndBored
The other one is that, in the USA, the police do not have to tell you ALL of the charges you are/may be facing. If you're told you're under arrest for stealing a handbag, you might not want a lawyer, and if you've been arrested for similar offences multiple times, you might even admit it, even if you didn't do it, just to get the process over with and get released. And THEN the police hit you with "you pulled the victim off her feet, she hit her head and died"
blainetog
There's no better way to do it. You can have all the rules and regulations you want but they'll never fit perfectly to every situation. You need a human in the chair capable of dispensing mercy when possible and the hammer when required. Also, the judge would be "pissed" in this situation because the lawyer would be wasting the court's time and the judge would be trying to discourage that. It's not just about whether the judge had their coffee that morning.
Froggie243
I mean, there have been studies that definitely show that whether there was coffee or a sandwich changes the result
blainetog
It's not JUST about whether the judge had their coffee that morning.