Corrected entry: The night before the final day of trial the prosecutor calls Vinny and tells him he "just found out" about "new evidence" that he intends to introduce the next day at trial. However this "new evidence" turns out to be an expert witness who testifies about the type of tyres the shooter's car had. This expert discusses tests he had performed, comparisons he had made, and the results he discovered in reaching his opinions (all past tense). There is simply no way the prosecutor could not have known that an expert had been hired to do the testing and comparing and that all this was going on, so it can't be "new evidence".
Corrected entry: Right at the end of the movie when Vinny is trying to leave, the judge comes out holding a file and goes to talk to Vinny. We see him come out of the building and then congratulate Vinny on being a good trial lawyer wearing his robe. It even flaps in the breeze slightly. As Vinny and Lisa pull away in the car, the judge in instantaneously wearing a light coloured suit.
Correction: I watched this scene closely and he is not wearing his robe. He comes out of the door with a fax in his hand and he is wearing his light colored suit. When he shakes Vinny's hand, he is still wearing his suit, but it only appears darker (because of the angle). When Vinny and Lisa drive away and they're standing on the sidewalk saying goodbye, he is in his suit and it looks lighter.
Corrected entry: Both Sheriff Farley and George Wilbur are in court when Mona Lisa gives her pivotal evidence regarding the car's skid marks. As both were witnesses (Wilbur was 'still under oath' when he gave his second round of evidence, so he had not been dismissed) they would not be allowed in the court room during any part of the proceedings except while giving their own evidence.
Correction: You are correct under normal circumstances, but these witnesses are kept as rebuttal witnesses. They are experts for the government and may be allowed to stay by the judge. Seeing as this judge was a stickler for process, Vinny must have requested they remain in case he required them to address or rebut a specific point, even though they are not his witnesses. Highly unusual in a big city, but not in this town where experts seem to be a premium.
Corrected entry: When the prosecutor meets Vinny in court for the first time he asks him "Is your attorney present?" This would make no sense considering (3) things. (1) He would have had a photo identification of any suspects prior to trial. (2) The sheriff was right behind him in court when they met so the sheriff should have interceded and told the prosecutor that Vinny wasn't the person on trial. And (3) he should have know that he was prosecuting 2 teenagers, not a single grown man.
Correction: This statement is intended as an insult. He is mocking Vinny's ability to represent anyone.
Correction: It is new evidence because it is testimony from a witness who was not questioned prior to trial, like the other three witnesses.