Corrected entry: The tire tracks laid out on the pavement from the prosecution's picture is different from the picture the defense submits at the end. Mona Lisa's picture shows the left tire track going onto the sidewalk while the defense picture shows both tires on the asphalt, far from the sidewalk.
Corrected entry: The FBI's expert testimony about the tire marks and the conclusion that the rubber residue and the rubber from the boys' tires was "identical" is actually inconclusive and misleading information. The expert's testimony established that the tire in question was the most common tire on the market. So any matching of chemical analysis data is at best anecdotal evidence.
Corrected entry: In the final scene, Vinny and his fiancee are supposed to be driving north back to New York City in the late afternoon. However, the shadows from the sun are coming from the east (right side) of the screen. Therefore, either it is the early morning, or they were actually driving further south (not northward) to their home in NYC.
Corrected entry: It is a potentially serious ethical violation for Vinny to represent both Billy and Stan at the same time. An attorney owes a duty of complete loyalty to each client s/he represents, and Billy and Stan's interests will not necessarily be the same throughout the trial (one may want to plead guilty, the other may not, for example). Without at least addressing this issue with the boys before he agrees to represent them, Vinny would be severely sanctioned.
Corrected entry: They make it a fairly large point about the tire size on the car, Michelin XGV size 75R14. This is actually not a real tire size, it's an incomplete one. The real tire size would read something like 205 75r15. Meaning the tire is 205 mm wide, 75 means it's 75% tall as it is wide (153.75mm), the final number is the width of the rim in inches. You'd need to know all three numbers to make any sort of forensic judgement, any one of them missing would leave some major measurements of the skid marks out. Surely the head of automotive forensics for the FBI, would be aware of this.
Corrected entry: When Vinny calls and questions George Wilbur (his second time on the stand) Vinny noticed Sheriff Farley as he came back into the court. The Sheriff nods at Vinny, and Vinny excuses George Wilbur. Jim Trotter III would have had a chance to ask Mr. Wilbur questions before he would have been dismissed.
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.
Corrected entry: In the final courtroom scene, Vinny writes a note and gives it to the sheriff just before calling Lisa to the stand. While testifying, Lisa reveals that a Pontiac Tempest had to be the only car possible to make the tire marks. Next, the sheriff returns to the stand and testifies that "on a hunch" he runs a check on a blue Pontiac Tempest, which just happened to be involved in another crime. How did the sheriff know, and how did Vinny know to have the sheriff check on a blue Pontiac Tempest if Lisa didn't reveal this information until after Vinny wrote the note?
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.
Corrected entry: The D.A. ends the court case by dismissing the charges against the defendants. Prosecutors don't dismiss cases - they can offer no evidence, effectively ending the case under trial, but only a judge can dismiss charges. This is not a character mistake - the legal difference is critical and no lawyer as highly placed as a state DA would ever make a mistake like that.
Corrected entry: Mona Lisa repeatedly swears while giving evidence, referring to the prosecutor's questions as 'bullshit', amongst other things. Regardless of how careless the judge is about running this case, that would get her a citation for contempt of course, if not worse.
Corrected entry: Near the end of the trial, when Lisa meets Vinny in Dave's-BBQ, she says she just got her pictures back. These pictures are from the beginning of their trip, because Vinny says one of them is of their first hotel room. However, Vinny used her camera to take pictures of one of the witness's windows and had those developed already, so the pictures of the tire marks and hotel room would have already been developed, too.
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: 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.Rollin Garcia Jr
Corrected entry: In the trial it was mentioned that one of the boys was charged with first-degree murder, and the other was charged with accessory to murder in the first-degree. Because of this the boys would not have been tried together, since the charges are not the same.
Corrected entry: When Lisa and Vinny are driving from the courthouse they are talking about how he didn't win the case by himself. In one shot a piece of her hair is stuck to her lipstick and in the next shot all of her hair is behind her ears. There are other moments where her hair changes position between shots.
Corrected entry: When the two boys, William and Stan, drive away from the "sack-o-suds" they do so in a controlled manner and never "burn rubber" as they leave. They never put any tire marks on the ground as they leave. A huge error considering that the trial turned on the 2 sets of tire marks.
Corrected entry: In the scene where Vinny and Lisa are in the hotel room and Vinny is revealing that he is scared about the trial, Lisa kisses Vinny goodnight and crawls in the bed. As she reaches over to turn off the lamp on the night stand, it shows an ash tray with cigarette butts in it. Neither Lisa or Vinny smoke in the entire movie.
Corrected entry: At the end courtroom scene where Vinny is questioning Lisa, after she looks at some pictures he asks "does the defense's case hold water?", and she answers "no, the defense is wrong..." What Vinny and Lisa seemed to forget is that THEY were the defense - they were in fact saying that their own case didn't hold water. We can only assume that Vinny meant to ask "does the PROSECUTION'S case hold water", since that's who he was really opposing.
Corrected entry: In the scene where Vinny is describing how the trial will work, using the "brick" explanation, he pulls the Ace of Spades out of the deck and shows it to the camera. Later in the scene, he is waving the card around. Somehow it has now become a Joker.
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".