"MY COUSIN VINNY" -- criminal trial procedures quiz study guide
NAME: _______________________________
"MY COUSIN VINNIE" study guide (bring to class for three class sessions next week) -- the quiz will be largely based on the questions below:
INTRODUCTION: The trial depicted in this film is more typical then the trial depicted in "A Few Good Men" because the case for murder is entirely CIRCUMSTANTIAL (if we disregard the "confessions") -- no one actually saw the defendants kill the store clerk, nor was a murder weapon found. Why, then, does the prosecution have -- even without the confessions -- a "prima facie" (first impression) case for murder and therefore probable cause to take the defendants to trial?
1. The public defender attempts to IMPEACH Sam Tipton, one of the eyewitnesses.How, and why does it fail?
2. Vinny also attempts to impeach Sam Tipton, even though he does not believe Tipton is lying. Vinny is attempting to establish reasonable doubt as to whether the defendants committed the murder -- what is Vinny's theory about what happened at the Sac-O-Suds?
3. Vinny uses EXHIBITS in his cross examination of the 2nd prosecution eyewitness. What are the exhibits, and why is Vinny able to use them?
4. Again, with the 2nd witness, Vinny doesn't demonstrate that the witness is lying. How does he IMPEACH him then?
5. The 3rd prosecution eyewitness, Mrs. Riley, again has no reason to lie and identifies the defendants. Vinny uses DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE in his cross examination. What is DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE and what is the purpose of using it here?
6. Does Vinny's cross examination of the 3 prosecution eyewitnesses prove that the defendants did not commit the murder? And, if it doesn't, what is the point of the cross examinations?
7. Vinny gives a well-worded objection to the expert witness called by the prosecution. Why does the judge over-rule the objection?
8. The expert's testimony is an example of CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Explain.
9. Vinny attempts to IMPEACH the prosecution's expert. Why does he fail?
10. The prosecution interrupts Vinny's DIRECT EXAMINATION of the defense witness, Miss Vito. What is the purpose of the interruption and why does the judge allow it?
11. Why is Miss Vito allowed to give her OPINION on the witness stand, when witnesses normally cannot give opinions?
12. Vinny says he called Miss Vito to the stand to REBUT a prosecution witness. Normally her testimony would be IRRELEVANT since she was in New York when the crime was committed. Why is her testimony RELEVANT?
13. Why does Vinny recall the prosecution's expert after Miss Vito's testimony. Why?
14. Why doesn't the trial end at this point?
15. Why doesn't this case go to the jury after the sheriff testifies (hint: look at the elements of murder below)?
The “elements” of a crime are what a statute requires that a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order the obtain a conviction. In the case of murder, the elements of what used to called “first degree” murder are:
A) The accused causes the death [proximate causation] of another person;
B) the death is caused intentionally or knowingly [premeditation]
"MY COUSIN VINNIE" study guide (bring to class for three class sessions next week) -- the quiz will be largely based on the questions below:
INTRODUCTION: The trial depicted in this film is more typical then the trial depicted in "A Few Good Men" because the case for murder is entirely CIRCUMSTANTIAL (if we disregard the "confessions") -- no one actually saw the defendants kill the store clerk, nor was a murder weapon found. Why, then, does the prosecution have -- even without the confessions -- a "prima facie" (first impression) case for murder and therefore probable cause to take the defendants to trial?
1. The public defender attempts to IMPEACH Sam Tipton, one of the eyewitnesses.How, and why does it fail?
2. Vinny also attempts to impeach Sam Tipton, even though he does not believe Tipton is lying. Vinny is attempting to establish reasonable doubt as to whether the defendants committed the murder -- what is Vinny's theory about what happened at the Sac-O-Suds?
3. Vinny uses EXHIBITS in his cross examination of the 2nd prosecution eyewitness. What are the exhibits, and why is Vinny able to use them?
4. Again, with the 2nd witness, Vinny doesn't demonstrate that the witness is lying. How does he IMPEACH him then?
5. The 3rd prosecution eyewitness, Mrs. Riley, again has no reason to lie and identifies the defendants. Vinny uses DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE in his cross examination. What is DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE and what is the purpose of using it here?
6. Does Vinny's cross examination of the 3 prosecution eyewitnesses prove that the defendants did not commit the murder? And, if it doesn't, what is the point of the cross examinations?
7. Vinny gives a well-worded objection to the expert witness called by the prosecution. Why does the judge over-rule the objection?
8. The expert's testimony is an example of CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Explain.
9. Vinny attempts to IMPEACH the prosecution's expert. Why does he fail?
10. The prosecution interrupts Vinny's DIRECT EXAMINATION of the defense witness, Miss Vito. What is the purpose of the interruption and why does the judge allow it?
11. Why is Miss Vito allowed to give her OPINION on the witness stand, when witnesses normally cannot give opinions?
12. Vinny says he called Miss Vito to the stand to REBUT a prosecution witness. Normally her testimony would be IRRELEVANT since she was in New York when the crime was committed. Why is her testimony RELEVANT?
13. Why does Vinny recall the prosecution's expert after Miss Vito's testimony. Why?
14. Why doesn't the trial end at this point?
15. Why doesn't this case go to the jury after the sheriff testifies (hint: look at the elements of murder below)?
The “elements” of a crime are what a statute requires that a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order the obtain a conviction. In the case of murder, the elements of what used to called “first degree” murder are:
A) The accused causes the death [proximate causation] of another person;
B) the death is caused intentionally or knowingly [premeditation]