My cousin vinny

Summary:
Bill Gambini and Stanley Rothenstein are two friends from New York University who just
received scholarships to UCLA. They decide to drive through the South. Once they arrive in
Alabama, they stop at a local convenience store to pick up a few snacks. But, no sooner
than they leave the store, they are arrested. They had thought that they were arrested for
shoplifting, but they were arrested for murder and robbery. Worse, they are facing
execution for this crime.

So the students, Bill Gambini (Macchio) and Stan Rothenstein (some Jewish actor) are
erroneously arrested and charged with murder. Desperate for legal assistance but short on
options, because Alabama, Bill calls the lawyer in his family,
his cousin, Vincent Laguardia Gambini.

So, amazingly, Bill gets somebody to answer his call, and Pesci comes to the rescue, along
with my sweet sweet Tomei. A brash, fast-talking Eye-talian Brooklyn Yankee bad news is
that Vinny is an inexperienced lawyer who has not been at a trial. So, Vinny has to defend
his clients and battle an uncompromising judge, some tough locals, and even his fiance,
Mona Lisa Vito, who just does not know when to shut up, to prove his clients' innocence. But
he will soon realize that he is going to need help

The trial then opens with Vinny representing his cousin and Gibbons representing Stan. Despite
some further missteps, including a gaudy secondhand cinema usher's uniform (an improvement on
his bike leathers) and sleeping through Trotter's opening statement, Vinny shows that he can make
up for his ignorance and inexperience with an aggressive and perceptive questioning style. After the
public defender is shown to have a debilitating stammer, Vinny quickly and comprehensively
discredits the testimony of the first witness (Maury Chaykin), a rebuttal revolving around grits. Billy's
faith is restored, Stan fires the public defender, and Vinny finally gets some sleep while serving his
contempt charges in jail.
Vinny's cross-examinations of the remaining two eyewitnesses are similarly effective, but on the
trial's third day, Trotter produces a surprise witness, FBI analyst George Wilbur, who testifies that the
pattern and chemical analysis of the tire marks left at the crime scene are identical to the tires on
Billy's Buick Skylark. With only the lunch recess to prepare his cross-examination and unable to
come up with a strong line of questioning, Vinny and Lisa quarrel over her photographs. Shortly after
the trial resumes, Vinny realizes that one of her photos holds the key to the case: the flat and even
tire marks going over the curb reveal that Billy's car could not have been used for the getaway, since
Billy's Skylark does not possess the rear suspension required to leave the tire tracks in the photo.
The car which made the tracks possessed an independent rear suspension and positraction, both
qualities not found in the Skylark but are available to the Pontiac Tempest. After requesting a records
search from the local sheriff (Bruce McGill), Vinny drags Lisa (both Vinny and Lisa had worked

as mechanics in her father's garage) into court to testify as his first witness. During Vinny's
questioning, Lisa comes to the same conclusion and testifies that the only vehicle that could
plausibly make the escape and be mistaken for Billy's 1964 Skylark is a 1963 Pontiac Tempest with
the same color and tires. After re-calling George Wilbur as a witness to confirm this, Vinny re-calls
the local sheriff, who has finished the records search. The sheriff testifies that two men resembling
Billy and Stan were just arrested in another county for driving a stolen Pontiac Tempest, and were in
possession of a gun of the same caliber used to kill the clerk. The defeated Trotter moves to dismiss
all the charges, and the film ends with kudos trading and Vinny and Lisa bantering about their future
wedding plans.

Legal advises
In the legal profession in the PH, cases are All criminal actions are commenced either

by a complaint or by an information.2 A complaint is a sworn written statement

charging a person with an offence, subscribed to by the offended party, any peace
officer or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated.3 An
information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offence subscribed
to by the fiscal and filed with the court.4 No complaint or information for an offence
recognizable by the Regional Trial Court can be filed without a preliminary
investigation having been first conducted by a judge, provincial city prosecutor or a
state prosecutor in order to determine if a prima facie case is established by the
evidence presented by both parties.
The 1987 Constitution requires that any person under investigation for the
commission of an offence shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain
silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived, except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.10 It also provides that an confession obtained through torture, force,
violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be
inadmissible in evidence