What would happen in real life (My Cousin Vinny scene)

DS86

This is a scene from one of my favourite comedies starring Joe Pesci as a lawyer defending his younger relative and his friend against murder charges. However, he is not very formal and keeps breaking the courts rules regarding dress codes, conduct etc. He's also having problems sleeping and is asleep half of the time in the court room, and before the scene in the video on youtube was sleeping and wasn't even listening to the plaintiff's lawyer speaking to the jury. Thus he was asked to refute everything the other lawyer had been saying and came up with thus after having to be woken up.

Vincent Gambini: "Everything that guy just said is bull****"

You can copy and paste the above into youtube as well. Would somebody who did that in real life in a court room get the sack do you think?

conorh91

There is a painting in the King's Inns of the trial of Sir Rodgering Casement, for treason, where Casement's (American) lawyer is the only lawyer not wearing a wig and gown. It's true-to-life, which is confusing because, at that time, the rules on counsel's right of audience was much more restrictive.

Anyway, back to the movie. If Vincent Gambini were a Barrister at the Irish Bar, he would not have a right of audience during ordinary, non-minor sittings, unless properly habited.

However, if Vincent Gambini were a practicing solicitor, he would have a right of audience, probably even if he were dressed like Vincent Gambini.

Falling asleep during his appearance would leave Vincent Gambini open to disciplinary action or a civil action.

In an extreme situation, disrespectful or disruptive behaviour in court could lead to Vincent Gambini being found in contempt of court, in which case he might even be committed to prison until he purged his contempt.

Aside from the behaviour of Gambini in the movie, lots of the courtroom procedures were on poetic licence.

For example, the Jury wouldn't have been present for the various voir dires, when the admissibility of new evidence was in issue.

The Prosecution wouldn't be allowed to ambush the Defence with new evidence. And having Gambini represent both of the Accuseds would be a significant conflict of interest.

Gambini does use a lot of humour in the movie. That's allowed, but a real lawyer would use humour a lot more economically, if at all.

It's actually a pretty annoying movie to watch if you know anything about criminal procedure.

coylemj

Of course a judge falling asleep would be a different matter - Google Nicky Kelly and the sleeping judge.

Manach

Slightly OT, but another great scene from the film was Pesci explaining how the opposing side apparently had a solid case build of bricks, were from a different point of view just paper thin cards ready to be knocked-down.

Esel

conorh91 wrote: »

There is a painting in the King's Inns of the trial of Sir Rodgering Casement, ...

AH much? Yeah, thought so.

johnnyskeleton

conorh91 wrote: »

It's actually a pretty annoying movie to watch if you know anything about criminal procedure.

I love it - its a great movie and truer to life than most boston legal type dramas

conorh91

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I love it - its a great movie and truer to life than most boston legal type dramas

Oh yeah, can't watch those either.

I have a sister who did law because of Ally McBeal. Needless to say she ended up in accountancy.

Pro Hoc Vice

conorh91 wrote: »

Oh yeah, can't watch those either.

I have a sister who did law because of Ally McBeal. Needless to say she ended up in accountancy.

I love Boston Legal as I do Rumpole of the Bailey, I like many of my friends are solicitors and barristers, who maybe don't have a snobby attitude to law. Anything that gets people interested in what I do I'm all for. BTW even found the Philippe Starck chairs and blew a good brief on them.

Anything that gets the public interested in the law is good, sorry to say this but you sound like a legal snob.