Corrected entry: Tire marks and a few eye witnesses alone are not enough evidence to take to trial; the prosecution would have needed fingerprints, recovered the money or a gun, gun shot residue, ballistics reports, etc. Lawyers never go to trial unless their case is air-tight, and Trotter's case was all based on circumstantial evidence.
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".
Correction: It is new evidence because it is testimony from a witness who was not questioned prior to trial, like the other three witnesses.
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: 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: Not all the time do they go with an air-tight case. If they are desperate to get them convicted they are going to try as soon as possible.
Ssiscool ★