Thread by @BarristerSecret

***MY COUSIN VINNY LIVE-TWEET: THE RULES***

This lecture explores the cinematic classic 'My Cousin Vinny' through the lens of English and Welsh law.

Contributions and observations are welcome, but I'm perfectly prepared to tweet the entire film to a wall of embarrassed silence.

This paper considers, inter alia, how the irrepressible journey of Vincent LaGuardia Gambini might have been different had he been practising English law and subject to the jurisdiction of the Bar Council of England and Wales.

Now, the eagle eyed among you may notice as the film unfolds, this documentary is based in America (USA). I, by contrast, am *not* based in America (USA). And I know very little about law or criminal procedure in Alabama, New York or anywhere else of relevance to this exercise.

If anybody following *does* have that specialist local knowledge, and is able to supplement my half-baked guesswork with informed expertise, then kindly KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.

We have no need for your sort where we’re going.

Jk, obvs. Feel free to douse me with your wisdom hose.

FIRST LEGAL INFRACTION.

And first blood to @Joanna__Hardy.

We’re into Beechum County! Which, as I’ve indicated, is for our purposes a suburb in Kent.

And the boys are in the convenience store.

Stuff is about.

To get.

Legal.

Now.

By forgetting to pay for a can of tuna in the store, have the boys committed a criminal offence?

Time to break out old section 3 of the Theft Act 1978.

SB rules: NO DISHONESTY. HONEST MISTAKE.

NO CRIME.

Now the identification procedure is woefully non-compliant with PACE Code D (which governs the rules for identification procedures) in multiple respects.

But there’s a lot going on in these early scenes, and my pizza is getting cold, so we’ll return to these deficiencies later.

The “confession”, however?

This, we need to challenge.

Because I did not hear a caution administered at any time by those police officers.

[DEVIL SMILE AND SIDE-EYE TO JURY]

Officer, are you familiar with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and associated codes of practice?

And can you please tell the jury the wording of the caution?

“You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

No caution? I’m relying on R v Doolan and getting that confession kicked in a voir dire.

Anyway. We have a whooooole trial for this kind of malarkey.

For now, let’s just marvel in silence at Vinny and Mona Lisa.

My love for Marissa Tomei is at George Costanza levels.

Oh look. The pointy heads are sticking their beaks in.

Enough with your “facts” and your “law”, professor.

Vinny has disclosed that he has been practising for 6 weeks and passed the New York Bar at the sixth attempt.

He now needs to convince the judge that he is competent to conduct a two-handed murder trial.

And the judge is Fred Gwynne…

… AKA HERMAN MUNSTER!

On a side note, Vinny is acting pro bono.

If you don’t pay for criminal lawyers, someone with 6 weeks’ experience and 5 failed exams is what you get.

Oh come on. You didn’t expect this fiasco to pass without piety and self-promotion, did you?

These are literally all I have.

Now, while Vinny has (for now) convinced Herman Munster to let him act in this murder trial, what would Vinny’s regulatory body say?

It’s time to consult the document that every barrister has absolutely definitely read in full yes sirree bob, it’s the Bar Code of Conduct!

Rule C21: You must *not* accept instructions to act if you are not competent to handle the particular matter or otherwise do not have enough experience to handle the matter.

This is bad news for Vinny.

And Mona Lisa ain’t impressed with Vinny’s courtroom debut either.

I mean, if we’re going to be really brutal, it doesn’t appear that Vinny is even technically qualified to practise in the jurisdiction.

So by exercising rights of audience in court, he is is committing a criminal offence contrary to section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

NB: It absolutely *is* an industry term.

Now we’re in court.

The prosecutor’s examination in chief is 85% prohibited leading questions.

What is he, a silk?

“When you come into my court looking like you do, you not only insult me, but you insult the integrity of this court…”

Well HANG ON there, Herman.

Let’s see what the Bar Council Note on Recommended Appropriate Court Dress (July 2020) says.

For our purposes, Vinny is appearing in a Crown Court.

Technically he should be wearing court dress, defined as “wigs, gowns, wing collars and bands or collarettes”.

Like this smooth customer, who is incidentally holding a bestselling book containing some Class A lawsplaining.

So Vinny fails on court dress. BUT might he just satisfy “business attire”, which would suffice in the magistrates’ court?

He has a black jacket and trousers.

Pretty suit-y to me.

No tie, granted, but *this is not prescriptive*

I’m letting Vinny have it. Up yours, Herman.

It’s possible - possible - that one might find oneself waiting slightly longer than this for a trial in our Crown Courts.

Possible.

Vinny is going hunting with the prosecutor in the hope that brandishing a firearm might just persuade the prosecutor to reveal the evidence.

You’ll need a lot more than a shotgun to get that in some magistrates’ courts.

Marissa Tomei’s grasp of the disclosure regime should be played on a loop in CPS offices and police stations nationwide.

Now to jury selection.

Fun fact: we don’t have this any more. We don’t get to choose the most bloodthirsty/lily-livered jurors as suit our case. You basically get the first twelve you’re given, unless they have some personal link to somebody in the trial.

Ok, not fun. But true.

I’m confident this part is coming up.

Just a moment to respect the outfit.

Queen.

As Vinny fixes his car, I’d like to take a moment to thank all those of you who have contributed and patiently followed, and to bid a fond farewell to the hundred people who have unfollowed during this event.

I don’t blame you.

LEGAL FACT:

The criminal justice system in England & Wales would be instantly improved if this became mandatory court dress for male advocates.

We don’t generally do defence opening speeches in the Crown Courts.

But if we did, every single one of mine would be this.

Just this.

Now Vinny is cross-examining the eye witness! It’s coming! It’s coming…!

IT’S HERE.

WALLOW IN THE GLORY OF THE GREATEST MOMENT IN CINEMATIC HISTORY!

Now onto the substance of Vinny’s cross-examination.

I’m going to be brutal.

I’m going to judge Vincent by the highest professional standards.

It’s absolutely fantastic.

And the sign off?

There are not enough chef’s kisses in the emoticon universe.

Again, our system would be improved immensely if, instead of simply sitting down at the end of our cross-examination, we were required to say…

Seriously. Law students should watch how Vinny builds his questions. It is utterly masterful.

He even seems - I am going to assume deliberately - to be tailoring his questions with the leading authority of R v Turnbull in mind.

What is Turnbull? I’m glad you asked…

Turnbull is the leading case which emphasises the dangers of mistaken identification evidence. Judges have to give juries a special direction in such cases, reminding them of how to assess identification evidence.

Skilled cross-examination aims to hit all of these points.

Right. The prosecution have suddenly sprung purported expert evidence mid-trial!

And Herman Munster has refused to exclude it!

He clearly needs to be reminded of Criminal Procedure Rule 19.3, re introducing expert evidence.

The Crown should not be indulged in this way.

On a side note, I would invite assistance with why an adjournment is called “a continuance”. When what you’re asking for is *not* to continue.

I don’t want to start a thing here, but America is plainly wrong.

Back to Vinny’s cross-examination of the Crown’s illicit expert.

Perfect again.

He has no expert of his own to fight the science.

So he asks a simple but effective question to dilute the force of the expert’s conclusion.

Bravo.

And Marissa is being called as a witness! Hurrah! Even though it would almost certainly force Vinny to withdraw due to the mahoosive conflict!

He’s applying to treat her as hostile.

Wonderful.

There is now an - entirely proper - voir dire to establish whether or not Mona Lisa has the necessary expertise to qualify as an expert.

And she is smashing it.

Now, you are no doubt wondering “what makes a witness an expert?”

And I am able to answer by sharing with you a helpful summary from Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (2022).

The only thing I know about 64 Buick Skylarks is what Marisa tells us. And I trust her completely.

And the Crown’s expert agrees! Marisa has won the day!

And what’s more - the prosecution do the honourable thing and invite the judge to dismiss all charges!

This literally *never* happens in films.

The cockles of my heart are glowing.

And Herman is now congratulating Vinny!

“You’re one hell of a trial lawyer”.

He really, really is.

❤️❤️❤️

And THAT IS IT!

We’ve reached the end of the greatest legal film ever made!

Thank you to all of you who have accompanied me through the latest iteration of my mid-life social media crisis.

I love you all. Xxx

And finally, if you have tolerated this nonsense and inconceivably have an appetite for more, I am duty bound to say that #NothingButTheTruth is out this week, on 12 May, and can be preordered here (as well as lots of other places).

GOODNIGHT! ❤️

amazon.co.uk/Nothing-But-Tr…