My Cousin Vinny

I. Synopsis:

Bill and Stanley are two friends from New York University who just received
scholarships to UCLA. They decided to drive to the South. When they arrived
in Alabama, they stopped in a local grocery store to pick up a few snacks.
But, no sooner than they leave the store, they are arrested. They thought
they were arrested for shoplifting, but they were arrested for murder and
robbery. They were facing execution of these crimes. They do not have
enough money for a lawyer so they opted to get Bill's cousin, Vinny. Vinny is
an inexperienced lawyer who has never been to trial. Vinny defended Bill
and Stanley before the court of Alabama, which was presided by Judge
Chamberlain. The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses to prove their
case but Vinny was able to discredit the witnesses’ testimonies. The
prosecution upon showing that they were not the real offenders withdrew the
case of murder against Bill and Stanley.

II. Rules on Evidence

In relation to the laws on evidence, the movie highlights how cross-

examination can make or break a case. The lawyer’s ability to cross examine
a witness and his knowledge on testimonial evidence is of great value to
discredit a witness.

The prosecution presented the same four (4) witnesses during the pre-trial
at the trial and testified about the same facts. Vinny cross examined the four
(4) witnesses.

Vinny cross-examines the witness 1. Vinny destroys the witness’ estimate of

time by eliciting testimony that the witness and grits for breakfast have to be
cooked for twenty minutes not five. At this point the witness gets boxed in,
and his credibility starts crumbling no matter how he responds to the question
asking him to affirm or deny the prior inconsistent statement.

Vinny achieved a dramatic effect, the first step was he set up the prior
inconsistent statement which would actually be repeated and reaffirmed. The
second step was he related to the witness the prior inconsistent statement
and at the same time he highlighted the contradictory utterance by relating
the witness circumstances of time person and place.
For the second witness, showed pictures of the witness’ dirty window, crud-
covered screen, trees with leaves and bushes to the latter. He showed the
circumstances of the witness during the time he saw the defendants. These
circumstances led to the presumption that due circumstances such as a dirty
window, crud-covered screen, trees with leaves, that there might have been
a mistake in what the witness saw.

After qualifying as an expert witness on automotive mecahnics, Vinny’s

fiancée, Mona Lisa Vito, testifies that the defendant’s car could not have
made the tire marks left outside the convenience store as a result of the car
speeding off. This scene helps identify the major and minor premise layed
down by the testimony of Mona Lisa Vito. Her testimony that “Positraction
was not available on a 1964 Buick Skylarks and that Positraction is limited
slip differential that distributes power to both tires is technical knowledge
that she brings to the case, which makes her an expert witness.
 12 Angry Men

I. Synopsis:

The movie focuses on a jury's deliberation in a capital murder case. A 12-

man jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first degree murder trial of an
18 year old man accused in the stabbing death of his father, were a guilty
verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be an
open-and-shut: the defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have
lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard the
screaming; saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors
immediately voted guilty, only one juror no. 8 (Mr. Davis) cast a not guilty
vote.
The movie is about the trial of a kid charged with murder in the first degree
or premeditated murder with a mandatory penalty of death. Now the trial just
concluded and it was up to the jurors to come up with a verdict. The juror
had deliberation until everyone was convinced that the guilt was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt.

II. Rules on Evidence

The film exemplifies very primary facets of the American Legal system and
examines them in practice. The principle which is also used in the Philippines
which is the highlight of the movie is “the principle of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. It is said that this burden afforded the defendant
extraordinary protection against the risk of extraordinary conviction.

At the jurors' room, the jurors decided to make a preliminary vote and the
result was 11 guilty and 1 not guilty, which was voted by juror no. 8. All others
got disappointed and asked what to do next and juror no. 8 told them, here's
where discussion of the case must be ensued.

Juror no. 3 stated that the alibi of the kid was weak for lack of substantial
evidence. Meanwhile, Juror no. 10 gave his opinion and stated that the
woman across the apartment testified that he saw the kid and his father at
the time of killing but it was later on refuted because at that time it was dark,
there was a passing train and the woman had a mark showing she wore
eyeglass, which gave the other Jurors reasonable doubt in their mind. Juror
no. 5 passed.
In relation to proof beyond reasonable doubt, the movie also focused on the
“burden of proof”. This was seen in the conversation between juror no. 1 and
8.

The other jurors then started stating their reasons why they voted guilty and
to convince juror no. 8 to change his mind. Juror no.1 stated that the kid was
guilty because no evidence showing his innocence and Juror no. 8 rebutted
it by stating that the burden of proof was on the prosecution.
 Philadelphia

Synopsis:
Andrew was an employee of Wyant and Wheeler Law Firm. The firm will be
representing a big time company and Andrew was chosen to represent the
said company but an unfortunate incident happened, the complaint prepared
by Andrew was lost. Andrew’s ill also was getting worse. One day, Andrew
went to Miller’s office to ask the latter to represent him in a case against his
former employer, Wyant and Wheeler Law Firm, for a wrongful termination.
The two came up with the idea that Andrew was fired because the partners
found out that Andrew has Aids instead. And they found a decision of the
Federal Supreme Court to support their case stating that Aids is one of the
handicapped that tried to be protected by the State against discrimination
regarding employment because Aids makes one individual’s social status
dead. The jurors decided in favor of Andrew by 11-1 votes out of the 12 jurors
and awarded damages such as backpay, mental anguish and humiliation,
and punitive damages. Meanwhile, Andrew was confined at the hospital
because he’s condition got worst. Mr. Miller went to visit and tell Andrew
about the good news and on that very same night, Andrew died.

Court Scene:
At the pre-trial, Miller made his opening statement, which states that Andrew
was fired because his employer, despite Andrew’s concealment of his ill,
discovered his ill and as most of the people would do, they would want to get
rid of it as soon as possible. While the defense's counsel claimed that
Andrew was fired because of his flagrantly incompetent at work and the firm
had no knowledge of Andrew’s ill.

At the trial, Miller called a former client of Andrew to establish the

competence of Andrew regarding his work but the witness changed his
answer at the witness stand as when he was deposed.

Ms. Benedict, who is an employee of the firm and has aids, testified how she
is being treated in the firm and she added that, one partner always says, “Oh
god, here’s come again the girl with Aids.” When she was cross examined,
she testified that she got infected by blood transfusion.

Ms. Burton, testified that she noticed that there’s something wrong with
Andrew like he’s ill and Mr. Wheeler, sometimes, makes statements of
discrimination about her. When she was cross examined, she testified that
she got promoted in the firm.

Ms. O’hara testified regarding the missing complaint and how Andrew kept
on screaming that day like a freak. Then later Jamey came in with the
complaint in his hand and said it was in the central files. When she was cross
examined, she testified that Andrew was a good boss and that there was
never been a problem with the quality of work of Andrew.

Mr. Collin, a colleague of Andrew at the firm, testified that they had lawyers
in the firm with different kind of illness and they were not fired for those
causes and that he has nothing to do with the file being misplaced. Mr. Miller
also asked if Mr. Collin is a homosexual and explained to the court that the
case is not just about aids but also about homosexual.

Mr. Walter Kenton, a senior partner, testified that they had one homosexual
like that and taught him a lesson. He also testified that he was not avoiding
people with aids who contracted it through no fault on their own but he only
have sympathy.

Andrew took the witness stand and testified that the firm aggressively
recruited him and his dream is to be one of the great lawyers of the firm like
its current partners. Then one day, the firm’s partners were making a joke
about homosexual, Andrew felt relieved for not telling them that he was a
gay. Andrew added that he loves to practice law and to see to it that justice
is being served. On cross examination, Andrew testified that he cheated to
his partner. In addition, the defense showed the absence of lesion on
Andrew’s face. On re-direct cross examination, Miller showed to everybody
what the lesion looked like located at the torso of Andrew.

The defense called Mr. Wheeler to testify. Mr. Wheeler testified that the firm
recruited Andrew because of his promising potentials; however, it never
became a reality so the firm had no choice but to let go of him and not
because Andrew had Aids. On cross examination, Mr. Wheeler testified that
he’s not a gay and that Andrew violated rules and he works only when he
wanted to.

Andrew’s condition got worst and blacked out. Andrew was brought to the
hospital.
Then the next witness, Mr. Seidman, another senior partner from the firm,
testified that he had suspected Andrew had aids and on cross examination,
he testified that he did not share such suspicion with other senior partners.

At the jury room, the jurors discussed whether or not Andrew Beckett was a
good lawyer that the firm would give Andrew an important case? So the jury
answered in affirmative and decided in favor of Andrew.

Lessons Learned:

THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE

I. Synopsis

This is a movie about an exorcism that went wrong. Father Richard Moore
was charged of negligent homicide for the death of Emily Rose. He was
represented by Erin Bruner, an agnostic. The prosecution based their
allegation on the fact that Emily’s death was caused primarily due to the
shutdown of her body effects secondary to her condition of “psychotic
epilepsy” and malnutrition. The State as corroborated by their witness
neurologist opined that Emily’s condition is rarely fatal and could have been
controlled by taking the drug Gambutrol. The defense relied on narratives
given by Emily’s family and boyfriend. Bruner also called an expert witness
in anthropology and psychiatry in order to create the possibility that the
possession of Emily is real and that could have led to her demise. Despite
such efforts, the defense is losing the case. The defense then presented a
recording in court which showed the events that happened the night when
Emily was exorcised, but such tape was successfully rebutted by the
prosecution. A doctor who had firsthand experience of the exorcism
appeared and told the defense that he was willing to testify that the case of
Emily was not epilepsy however, before he could be presented, he died in
an accident. In the end, Bruner called father Moore in the witness stand
where father Moore read a letter that was written by Emily herself. Father
Moore was found guilty but the sentence given to him was “sentenced
served” so he was set free.

II. RULES ON EVIDENCE

Expert Witness
One of the rules of evidence applicable in this movies is that of expert
witnesses. It shows that an expert witness may be presented to rebut an
expert witness of the other party. The defense presented an expert witness
to give her opinion on the defense’s alternative explanation which is
exorcism.

Under Philippine Rules, it is sufficient that the expertise of the witness is

supported by the following factors: education and training, detailed and first-
hand familiarity with the facts of the case and presentation of the authorities
or standard upon which his opinions are based.

Hearsay Evidence

Another rule applicable as found in the movie are hearsay evidences.

In hearsay evidences, one cannot testify as to an opinion regarding a subject
matter. However, if such opinion comes from an expert witness in giving his
expert testimony or take in the fact in dispute, it may be admissible as part
of his expert testimony.
Leading questions are also presented in the movie. The counsels
cannot ask questions which are putting the answers they want to hear into
the mouth a witness.

Authentication of Evidence

Authentication of object evidences is also introduced in the movie. The

recording that was presented in court was authenticated by father Moore
because he was the one who recorded the happening during the night of the
exorcism. This object evidence may also be documentary evidence because
the court may be interested in what is in the tape recorder