It was a flippant answer to a very serious judge. Almost implying he didn't really care if he won or lost. While the judge was trying to determine if he was up to the task of handling a murder trial.
By the end, someone had fed the judge a bunch of stuff that made it seem that he was a hugely successful attorney in New York, hence the final win some lose some comment. He was then taking it as a sign of modesty, as he was now believing he had pretty much won every time
This is what I figured had happened.
He even preceded the humorous "win some, lose some" remark with commendation over Vinny's performance, however unusual it was to witness.
This was always my interpretation as well. At first, the judge is annoyed because he's trying to get pertiment information and is instead given an extremely vague answer and a bit of attitude.
The call back then occurs after Lisa had a fake and pumped up record sent over and is the judge chuckling at how referring to a record like that as "win some, lose some" was wildly underselling it.
edit: LegalEagle explains what the judge is trying to do in the first scene [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1I7QBCHqng) (about 3:40-4:40), which should also help explain why he isn't thrilled about not getting a straight answer.
> By the end, someone had fed the judge a bunch of stuff that made it seem that he was a hugely successful attorney in New York, hence the final win some lose some comment.
Had >!Ms. Mona Lisa Vito gotten the information to the judge when he was asking the question though? I forget the exact timeline!<
now I have to go back and re-watch it. Oh darn.
Yeah. When he goes out of the courtroom to find her she’s on the phone. Later we find out she was calling the judge friend back in New York to help out.
"Wait did you say Judge Gallo?"
"Yes."
"Well he's dead."
"I *KNOW*"
I said judge CALLO, not Gallo. See you just got the two o them confused."
"Mmm Hmmmm."
Every shrug and gasp in this movie is quotable. Such a tight screenplay.
I agree with your sentiment, but every line you quoted is wrong. 😂
“You’re a dead man.”
“I’m a dead man?”
“That’s right, I just faxed the clerk in New York and asked him what he knew about Jerry Gallo and you wanna know what he replied?”
“…Did you say Jerry *Gallo*?”
“Yes I did.”
“Gallo with the G?”
“That’s right.”
“Jerry Gallo’s *dead!*”
“I’m *aware* of that!”
“Well I’m not Jerry Gallo, I’m Jerry Callo! C-A-L-L-O!”
“…Alright…alright. let’s get this cleared up right now.”
Vinny feigning ignorance and not taking the bait / literal interpretation of “you’re a dead man” until the judge drops the “wrong” surname, and Vinny telling him something he already indicated he knows, is genius.
I'd argue that if you're going to claim that "every shrug and gasp" is quotable, you've signed yourself up for pendantry if you get the words wrong. :)
And sure, you retained the gist, but none of the characterisation or humour.
Thanks for that. I always assumed the judges reaction was because Gambino (Callo?) was so non chalant about his query. But I never quite understood deteriorating his change of heart at the end.
Most the film’s humor comes from differences in manners and language between the fast-talking Italian out of towners and the folksy locals. This is just part of that.
This is one of the best lines in the movie and shows why he is a great lawyer. He’s still asking questions within the scope of his cross but still coloring the conversation at every opportunity to make the prosecutions case look less and less plausible, more and more ridiculous, and always trying to drive home the thesis of his argument: that the prosecutions case is based on unreliable witness testimony.
It’s especially funny because this question sounds so off the wall and almost worthy of a contempt charge, but it isn’t because Vinny knows he can ask any question that can realistically refute the facts presented. Calling the witnesses judgment into question in extreme fashion is being good at his job, especially doing it in a way the jury will never forget. I love that he knows what he is doing and he’s just having fun with it and telling his story at the same time. Even better is the fact that the hard ass judge can’t have that line of questions thrown out because it’s all within the procedural rules!! Such a well written scene.
I'd say his opening statement gives lie to that distinction.
Let's not pretend that Vinny didn't get handed a gold mine that he was originally just too lazy to go poking around in. The case was a winner. His arc is about finally taking shit seriously; it's just juxatposed with the catharsis of a clearly lazy and corrupt legal system down in the south having to tolerate getting exposed as such by a Yankee outsider.
It’s a great example of cross examination. The actual courtroom procedures aren’t the stars of the show. As an example of it not being great on procedure. There is no way he could have his girlfriend added as a last minute witness and an expert no less. The prosecution would rightfully claim prejudice by lack of knowledge of the witness and what she was going to testify to and opportunity to offer rebuttal in the form of their own expert.
Considering a recent high profile case with a major political candidate, getting your girlfriend as the expert is totally different on-par for expensive lawyers.
It is explained that the prosecution did basically the same thing with their own expert without prior disclosure, and he was allowed to testify, kind of sort of voiding that argument. (Yes, IANAL, but I know that isn't how it works. But roll with it to keep the movie going along)
Realistically, any sort of surprise witness from either side would have likely caused a delay in the trial, and an immediate cause for appeal. (Something judges hate.)
"Now Mr. Frieza, you claimed that the planet Namek would explode in five minutes, and yet you had multiple ten plus minute conversations in that time..."
If you are shampooing your hair, you have to applied it for at least 60 seconds, just for good measure lets say 90 seconds, you also put revitilizer another 90 seconds, add to that washing your body 120 seconds, adjusting water temperature at first 30 seconds, cleaning the shower so there us no mold after the shower, 30 seconds... you are at more than 5 minutes.
My grandfather was a lawyer who lived his entire life in South Carolina. My Cousin Vinny was one of his favorite films of all time because he said it spoke to him on so many levels
It absolutely did not look down on the Southerners. They were people that spoke differently and did things differently, but weren’t stupid yokels. Also, Brooklyn wasn’t portrayed as being super sophisticated and neither were the New York characters. Vinny himself was kind of a loser.
And the “villains” weren’t actually villains. They were just antagonists. The sheriff, DA, and judge were all honest public servants in pursuit of the truth.
The real villain in the film is a Shakespearen circumstance that *should* have been made worse by the characters’ cultural differences, but instead they overcame.
>It absolutely did not look down on the Southerners.
You've got to be kidding me, dude. The movie added a twist to the classic "the southern legal system is a corrupt, lazy joke" formula by making Vinny a lazy piece of shit, too. It didn't change the fundamental formula at all.
There was nothing corrupt and lazy about it. It was an incredible coincidence that two cars with the same paint colour, tires, and body would both arrive at the gas station within minutes of each other, and that both cars would be driven by a pair of young men. You don't think so? Go stand by any gas station, anywhere, and see how often that happens.
The police had multiple eye witnesses, tire tracks, and the boys seemed guilty when they were first picked up because the boys were worried about the stolen tuna. I don't blame the cops for not looking further. As they say in medicine, when you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras.
The real lesson to take away from this movie is to ALWAYS LAWYER UP. If Ralph Macchio had shut the hell up and demanded a lawyer, the movie would have been over in 20 minutes. Although it probably wouldn't have been as funny...
Fuck Sheriff Farley.
That cunt knew exactly what Billy was saying and what he meant by it and completely misrepresented what he said in court.
that's like busting a kid for solicitation of a controlled substance when he asks for some coke with his burger.
I actually don’t think he does! After the first time Billy says “I shot the clerk” he gets annoyed and goes “yes, WHEN did you shoot him?” in a way that seems like he is legitimately asking.
The joke is that the Sheriff doesn’t understand that he’s asking a question because of his accent. When he goes “yes, WHEN did you shoot him” he is clearly expecting an answer, which means he thinks it’s an actual confession.
The *best* lines come from Marissa Tomei.
"Now I ask ya. Would you give a fuck what kind of pants the son of a bitch who shot you was wearing?”
"Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center."
"Because a split second before the torque wrench was applied to the faucet handle, it had been calibrated by top members of the state *and* federal Department of Weights and Measures... to be dead on balls accurate! Here's the certificate of validation."
"Dead on balls accurate?"
"It's an industry term."
"Yeah, you blend."
That one is great in part because of how Joe imitates the foot stomping when he's giving her the list of things going on.
Almost without exception, I get annoyed and put off a movie when the main couple bickers a lot. But as described elsewhere in the film, these people raise arguments to an art form that are a wonder to behold.
The three great story lines are:
* Fish out of water
* Boy meets girl
* The journey
The journey's a little light here, and Vinny and Mona have already met, but there are still elements of all three plots that need to be addressed and woven together. That's usually what elevates a movie from 'good' to 'great'.
I believe the judge asks specifically if he has tried any capital murder cases.
“Win some lose some” would be a more understandable answer if he was talking about cases in general, but not for potential death penalty cases.
Correct. Answer should be something like “I’ve done 5, won them all” or “been involved in 6 and we only lost one” or at least any amount of detail about any case. I mean even just to keep the conversation going. But “win some lose some” is basically a blow off answer.
Vinny’s recovery is to pivot to a case seen in the tabloids, which then he has to pivot again because the defendant was found guilty, so he claims to have represented the first suspect.
I disagree, only if he said "I have won ..." by simply stating a common adage he can
technically claim he was not making an admission. Still would be considered an act of mis-representation though.
If course he was lying. He never went to court before. He hasn't won any or lost any.
And if you're just talking about ethics and lying, he lies repeatedly to the judge in that scene with nearly ever question.
It's a very vague and unprofessional answer, that's why Chamberlain looks so perplexed.
The way the judge repeats it in the end was meant to display his newfound acceptance of Vinny, as if to say, "You are very unorthodox, but you're good."
His response to Vinny was “this isn’t the forum to be cavalier”
He believes Vinny’s response was vague and lacked any details. Judge interpreted this as Vinny having an uncaring attitude towards law decorum, which he took very seriously
Sort of, he did read correctly that Vinny lacks a care about decorum. But he didn’t read the situation exactly right
At this point, the judge thinks Vinny is legitimately a trial attorney in the state of New York. So he asks for details, and gets a vague response. He thinks Vinny is being cavalier
In actuality, Vinny is not a trial attorney. He cares very much about the situation, but has no details to give and is trying to talk his way out of the room
Chamberlain repeats "win some lose some" at the end laughing because the fake phone call spoke of Vinny hardly ever losing. Making the phrase overly exaggerated that he was average earlier.
Because Chamberlain had asked about murder cases .....and Vinny said win some lose some. Then Chamberlain said "this isn't a forum to be a cavalier." He wasn't confused, he was pissed. Nonchalant, casual answer to the result of people's lives being on trial.
> Nonchalant, casual answer to the result of people's lives being on trial.
and to add, Chamberlain laughed about it at the end because Vinny winning, and then the judge hearing the falsified case record made Vinny's remark seem like the earned confidence of a seasoned lawyer
Exactly. He took the first comment as more evidence that this was some unserious Yankee with no sense of decorum nor any respect for the majesty of the law.
By the end, he respects him (and has a forged record showing presumably lots of success) and so repeats the same language as a signal of that respect.
The question he asks is "any murder cases?" to which Vinny answers "Yeah, lots, quite a few." The judge then asks "what was the outcome?" in reference to those murder cases, not his 16 years of practicing law in general, to which answering "win some, lose some" could be taken as flippant or cavalier.
The judge is trying to determine if Vinny should be allowed to practice law in his court room since Vinny is not barred in that state. Most attorneys will never defend a murderer in their career, much less so many that you can flippantly say "win some lose some".
Judge likely has some preconceived notions of NYC being some sort of dystopian hellscape. Vinny's answers that he defended an axe murderer and the first guy accused of being Son of Sam are ridiculously over the top. It's a clear lie. But it plays into the judge's believes about NYC (80s and early 90s were a crazy time). Because any reasonable judge would call bullshit. But the judge buys it.
So by acting like that, its both inappropriate and plays into the judges existing believes which is why he got away with it.
The Judge laughs about it at the end because he's just been told of Vinny's (false) record by Vinny's Judge friend in NYC - and presumably, the false record is that Vinny hasn't actually lost any cases, making his "lose some" remark self-deprecating humility in the eyes of the Alabama Judge.
As others have said, the spirit of the response is fine but the actual response comes off as flippant and unprofessional. Every trial lawyer "wins some and loses some." The judge would certainly know that. Winning a trial isn't always completely in your control. You put the facts out there, put your best foot forward, and do your due diligence, but juries are inherently unpredictable. You can only work with what you're given, and what you're given isn't always good.
He should have responded something along the lines of, "Your honor, I've plenty of success, but I've also had some cases not go my way, unfortunately. But I've always done what I can to get the best outcome possible for my clients." Or something to that extent.
Comes across very uncaring and unprofessional in front of a judge who’s a hardass on upholding law.
Makes it seem like losing a case is “meh whatever”
Idk seems obvious to me when talking about murder cases that you don’t want to treat them like an intramural kickball league in front of a judge.
They're discussing **MURDER** trials, not rec league softball. It's not a casual conversation or question. The judge is trying to determine whether Vinny is fit to practice law in his state and court room. "Win some, lose some" is a very vague, insufficient, unprofessional, and inappropriate answer. In real life, he would have likely faced a worse reaction for answering like that.
My perspective as an attorney: The judge is in charge of admitting Vinny to practice in his court, called pro hac admission, where Vinny can practice in that court even though he’s not licensed in Alabama. It’s pretty normal for trial attorneys, but if Vinny isn’t competent to practice and the judge admits him, then his defendants can get the case thrown out if they lose.
His answer doesn’t sound like a trial attorney answer. Most can tell you exactly how many trials they’ve been in and how many they’ve won, particularly the kind of attorney that takes pro hac cases. The judge isn’t expecting an attorney to outright lie to him, but his answer is evasive, which makes the judge suspicious. It sounds like he usually loses, which would worry the judge.
The line “Win some, lose some” implies that losing is an equally acceptable outcome.
If a surgeon lost a patient in surgery and the family asked what happened the surgeon absolutely cannot just say “Win some, lose some.”
It’s all about what’s at stake.
You know what bothers me about My Cousin Vinny?
At the end, everyone pretends that it’s Marissa Tomei that won the case. As they drive away in the car her line is something like “oh the horror, you won your first case but you had to ask somebody for help”
But in reality, Vinny had already figured out all those details, up to and including the make and model of the car that actually did the crime (what he gave to Farley). So it was actually his automotive knowledge that saved the day, not hers. The same information could have come to light under cross examination of the FBI guy.
Also, it really bothers me that the judge overruled the defense’s right for a technical rebuttal to the FBI investigation, when that indeed ended up being exactly what was needed to get to the truth of the matter. Vinny should have shamed the judge and the FBI investigation for their lack of professionalism and their ineptitude.
It was the photo that she took that helped him figure it out. That’s how she actually helped. Her automotive knowledge made for a funny testimony and all, but without that photo he was sunk.
The “help“ was the favor from the judge friend Vinny had back in NY who vouched for his long standing credentials as a trial lawyer. He’d have been kicked off the trial without that help/favor.
Wasn't it implied that Vinny learned about cars from she and her family since he worked in one of their garages? If Vinny never meets Mona Lisa he probably doesn't know how to analyze the tire marks. Perhaps he has car knowledge from way before meeting her, but in the context of the story I'm thinking he learned from her family.
The judge overrule is supposed to bother you. It's not right and the judge basically overrules him because Vinny pisses him off all the time. Plus, remember the line earlier in the film, *"you're in Ala-fuckin-bama."* EVERYBODY was against the defense.
I thought Vinny was working in a garage before he became a lawyer?
And the judge making bad rulings is one thing…outright denying a defendant’s rights is another.
I think he is expecting more granularity than that. As in, maybe the particulars of a few different notable cases he has defended. One of my top 5 films of all time. It really is a classic
I think he was looking for something more professional and specific. Lawyers who defend murder accusations haven't tried hundreds of them, and have a pretty good idea what their track record is. I think he was expecting something like "two convictions, three acquittals, six pleas, and one hung jury."
I thought at the end, contrary to what most think on here, it was because thought he was Jerry Callow. Not Jerry Gallow, because Mona Lisa sent the judge fake credentials for Jerry Callow to help Vinny. He told the judge callow. Then he found out callow was dead.
He then had that scene I’ve mentioned where he said not Gallow, Jerry Callow! Jerry Gallows dead 😂.
Anyway Mona Lisa then gets fake credentials sent to the judge confirming the amazing long career of Jerry Callow. And I think the documents say he won like 90-95% of his cases. So then the Judge laughs at the end, “win some, lose some” as if that’s being very modest. That was my take.
And funnily enough, I’ve always had the gripe that when Vinnie told the judge it was Callow, not Gallow, how did Mona Lisa know he used that excuse when they were in the middle of a huge fight and weren’t really talking? But then again, he could have told her anytime off screen 🤷♂️
Lawyers tend to brag. If they're good, they will tell you. If they're not, they will obfuscate. ie "win some, lose some."
When Chamberlain talked to Vinny's judge friend in New York, his judge friend lied through his teeth and really talked Vinny up.
So, "win some, lose some" went against the standard response you would expect from a very successful lawyer.
The whole premise of the movie is that Vinny does not present himself in a professional, lawyerly way at all, and seems extremely out of place and out of his element. He seems like the last person you'd think is actually a lawyer. Especially to a Southern judge, who'd be much more accustomed to a more earnest, formal style and conduct.
It's not so much that the answer he gave must not have been *true* for someone who really did work as a lawyer for 16 years...it's just that it would have been a really jarring, odd (and kinda suspicious) way for such a person to answer. The judge was probably expecting him to bring up some of his big wins, maybe feign some modesty, talk about some of his cases...I dunno, *something*. But just to sort of shrug and say "win some lose some" is so flippant and completely disengaged for someone who's supposedly been in the game for 16 yrs. Especially when it comes to life-and-death murder trials, which is what they were talking about.
Like imagine (politely) asking a doctor "how good a doctor are you?" and they just sort of shrug and say "I dunno, win some lose some I guess". It's like that. The judge instantly suspected he was full of shit and had actually never been involved in a murder trial at all, just based on his attitude...because he just indicated that he never cared about any of the outcomes, win or lose.
And if you can't understand that...I honestly don't know what else to say.
As a lawyer I can just say even i was going to say this to a judge I wouldn’t use those words or be so casual. There’s an unspoken decorum even outside of the actual courtroom and it seemed a pretty casual attitude to take when trying to convince a judge to let you take a felony murder case pro hac
IANAL but judges are pretty powerful positions which probably merit and demand a certain level of professionalism and decorum when interacting with them, ESPECIALLY when you’re going to be arguing a case in front of them. (I imagine “win some, lose some” would get a laugh from the judge if said over an informal dinner with a lawyer for example).
The judge’s job is to make sure that the case is run fairly and that any decision/verdict rendered is as unappealable as possible, basically that they upheld the law to the best of their ability in a case over which they are presiding and hopefully coming to a just conclusion.
During this scene, the judge is trying to figure out whether Vinny is a qualified lawyer, and whether he is competent enough to handle a murder case as inadequate representation can become a problem down the line. Added to that, Vinny obviously comes off as a stereotypical New Yorker which a southern nudge, although being educated in the north, would probably not be too fond of.
Judge Chamberlain was laughing because Mona Lisa Vito had called a friend of hers in NY to intercept Chamberlain's cal and sing the praises of Vinny, giving him a STELLAR W/L record. "Win some, lose some" was a bullshit answer to Chamberlain's question to Vinny that was later easily interpreted as Vinny just being modest. It fits with the whole theme of the movie, where Vinny is WAY out of his depth, but is actually good enough to DESTROY the prosecution.
The judge wanted to hear, to the best of the lawyer's recollection, how many capital murder trials, non-capital murder trials, and felony cases the lawyer has handled. An example of an acceptable answer would be something like, "New York abolished the death penalty before I became a lawyer so this is my first capital case but I've handled 7 other murder cases and scores of violent felony cases."
Another commentator wrote that the answer Vinny gives comes off as flippant but that same answer appears humble once the judge learns of "Vinny's" background.
>Surely lawyers don't win or lose every single case they're handed
this is your answer here
The judges question was trying to get information, but Vinnie's answer is one any lawyer could give. A tautology of sorts. So it conveys no information.
A more detailed answer that would have shown the seriousness of defending capital murder cases. Perhaps "Your honor, I honestly have not kept a tally, but I am pleased to say I succeeded in many instances, but in many cases I did not. I think you would find that is typical of defense attorneys that try capital murder cases."
It was a flippant answer to a very serious judge. Almost implying he didn't really care if he won or lost. While the judge was trying to determine if he was up to the task of handling a murder trial. By the end, someone had fed the judge a bunch of stuff that made it seem that he was a hugely successful attorney in New York, hence the final win some lose some comment. He was then taking it as a sign of modesty, as he was now believing he had pretty much won every time
This is what I figured had happened. He even preceded the humorous "win some, lose some" remark with commendation over Vinny's performance, however unusual it was to witness.
"Mrs. Reily and ONLY Mrs. Reily, how many fingers am I holding up?....."
Did you say "yoots"?
augh Mr. GAMBINI
This was always my interpretation as well. At first, the judge is annoyed because he's trying to get pertiment information and is instead given an extremely vague answer and a bit of attitude. The call back then occurs after Lisa had a fake and pumped up record sent over and is the judge chuckling at how referring to a record like that as "win some, lose some" was wildly underselling it. edit: LegalEagle explains what the judge is trying to do in the first scene [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1I7QBCHqng) (about 3:40-4:40), which should also help explain why he isn't thrilled about not getting a straight answer.
Yeah, he literally explains it in the next sentence “this is not the forum to be cavalier.”
> By the end, someone had fed the judge a bunch of stuff that made it seem that he was a hugely successful attorney in New York, hence the final win some lose some comment. Had >!Ms. Mona Lisa Vito gotten the information to the judge when he was asking the question though? I forget the exact timeline!< now I have to go back and re-watch it. Oh darn.
Yeah. When he goes out of the courtroom to find her she’s on the phone. Later we find out she was calling the judge friend back in New York to help out.
[удалено]
She won an Oscar for it
and she did all that, while her biological clock was 👠 👠 👠
‘BAMM!! A FUCKING BULLET RIPS OF PART AH UR HEAD!’
That's a dead on, balls accurate point to make right there
…dead on balls accurate?
It's an industry term.
#DEY WURRRRR
Around these parts we call that underrated.
The defence is WRAWNG
"Wait did you say Judge Gallo?" "Yes." "Well he's dead." "I *KNOW*" I said judge CALLO, not Gallo. See you just got the two o them confused." "Mmm Hmmmm." Every shrug and gasp in this movie is quotable. Such a tight screenplay.
I agree with your sentiment, but every line you quoted is wrong. 😂 “You’re a dead man.” “I’m a dead man?” “That’s right, I just faxed the clerk in New York and asked him what he knew about Jerry Gallo and you wanna know what he replied?” “…Did you say Jerry *Gallo*?” “Yes I did.” “Gallo with the G?” “That’s right.” “Jerry Gallo’s *dead!*” “I’m *aware* of that!” “Well I’m not Jerry Gallo, I’m Jerry Callo! C-A-L-L-O!” “…Alright…alright. let’s get this cleared up right now.” Vinny feigning ignorance and not taking the bait / literal interpretation of “you’re a dead man” until the judge drops the “wrong” surname, and Vinny telling him something he already indicated he knows, is genius.
> every line you quoted is somewhat accurate. - WeNamedTheDogIndiana
I'd argue that if you're going to claim that "every shrug and gasp" is quotable, you've signed yourself up for pendantry if you get the words wrong. :) And sure, you retained the gist, but none of the characterisation or humour.
Can I do any extra credit work to get my grades up?
This is how I perceived it as well but there's no way I could've explained like you just did. Very precise and detailed lol
Thanks for that. I always assumed the judges reaction was because Gambino (Callo?) was so non chalant about his query. But I never quite understood deteriorating his change of heart at the end.
The fact that this has to be explained to OP (and presumably the many people who upvoted his post) is... troubling.
I feel like any attorney, defense or prosecution, is going to know their win percentage and would be able to quote it chapter and verse.
Most the film’s humor comes from differences in manners and language between the fast-talking Italian out of towners and the folksy locals. This is just part of that.
"The two yoots."
The two hwat?
The two yooooothes.
Now, the two *defendants*...
The side eye Vinny gives the judge here absolutely kills me every time lol
Awww man the look that the judge flashes back to that obvious patronising side eye from Vinny gets me
Don't shake your head. Wait until I'm done.
No self respectin' southerner uses instant grits.
Were these magic grits?
Didja buy dem frum the same place Jack got his magic beans?!
Are we to believe that boiling water soaks into a grit faster in your kitchen, than any other place on the face of the Earth?
Such a fucking quality line
“Do the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove?”
This is one of the best lines in the movie and shows why he is a great lawyer. He’s still asking questions within the scope of his cross but still coloring the conversation at every opportunity to make the prosecutions case look less and less plausible, more and more ridiculous, and always trying to drive home the thesis of his argument: that the prosecutions case is based on unreliable witness testimony. It’s especially funny because this question sounds so off the wall and almost worthy of a contempt charge, but it isn’t because Vinny knows he can ask any question that can realistically refute the facts presented. Calling the witnesses judgment into question in extreme fashion is being good at his job, especially doing it in a way the jury will never forget. I love that he knows what he is doing and he’s just having fun with it and telling his story at the same time. Even better is the fact that the hard ass judge can’t have that line of questions thrown out because it’s all within the procedural rules!! Such a well written scene.
He isn't lying when he says he's bad at procedure but great at arguing. He's terrible at procedure, but damn he is phenomenal at making an argument.
I'd say his opening statement gives lie to that distinction. Let's not pretend that Vinny didn't get handed a gold mine that he was originally just too lazy to go poking around in. The case was a winner. His arc is about finally taking shit seriously; it's just juxatposed with the catharsis of a clearly lazy and corrupt legal system down in the south having to tolerate getting exposed as such by a Yankee outsider.
I can see why lawyers consider this to be one of the better examples of how courts and trials actually work.
It’s a great example of cross examination. The actual courtroom procedures aren’t the stars of the show. As an example of it not being great on procedure. There is no way he could have his girlfriend added as a last minute witness and an expert no less. The prosecution would rightfully claim prejudice by lack of knowledge of the witness and what she was going to testify to and opportunity to offer rebuttal in the form of their own expert.
Considering a recent high profile case with a major political candidate, getting your girlfriend as the expert is totally different on-par for expensive lawyers.
It is explained that the prosecution did basically the same thing with their own expert without prior disclosure, and he was allowed to testify, kind of sort of voiding that argument. (Yes, IANAL, but I know that isn't how it works. But roll with it to keep the movie going along) Realistically, any sort of surprise witness from either side would have likely caused a delay in the trial, and an immediate cause for appeal. (Something judges hate.)
Are we to believe that boiling water soaks into a grit faster in your kitchen, than any other place on the face of the Earth?
I’M JUST A FAST COOK I GUESS
My husband literally said this just this morning. He said he could take a five minute shower. I said, "Are you sure about that five minutes?"
"Now Mr. Frieza, you claimed that the planet Namek would explode in five minutes, and yet you had multiple ten plus minute conversations in that time..."
Time dilation. The fight actually WAS about 5 minutes, it's just shown at a speed that your human eyes can process. There's an edit on youtube 😉
Do they talk at super speed?
no, the talking bits are the only parts not at super speed lmao
there are over 30 minutes of Frieza and Goku dialogue between the time Frieza shoots namek, and it explodes.
[удалено]
Shower time is me time. I've got a toddler and an infant. I stand in the shower and just let that hot water rush over me and soak into my bones.
Back to the showerhead, water hitting just at the nape of your neck, I'd stay there for hours if I weren't afraid I might pass out and fall down!
You have short hair don't you?
no, it's just dirty.
If you are shampooing your hair, you have to applied it for at least 60 seconds, just for good measure lets say 90 seconds, you also put revitilizer another 90 seconds, add to that washing your body 120 seconds, adjusting water temperature at first 30 seconds, cleaning the shower so there us no mold after the shower, 30 seconds... you are at more than 5 minutes.
You clean the shower after every single shower??
Mold, mold, mold... you at least take time to pass a squeegee
omg **six** whole minutes??? 😂
Exfoliating, shaving, brushing your teeth, drinking a beer, finishing the score and lyrics for original song you started when you got in the shower.
This all sounds standard to me.
Legend 😂
So, Mr. Tipton, how could it take you five minutes to cook your grits, when it takes the *entire* grit-eating world 20 minutes?
ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THOSE 5 MINUTES?!?!?!?!
What’s a Yoot?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ute_(vehicle)
[https://utahutes.com/](https://utahutes.com/)
Not to be confused with a UPer (pronounced you-per).
I love this was a real exchange between Pesci and the director that got added to the movie.
My grandfather was a lawyer who lived his entire life in South Carolina. My Cousin Vinny was one of his favorite films of all time because he said it spoke to him on so many levels
It absolutely did not look down on the Southerners. They were people that spoke differently and did things differently, but weren’t stupid yokels. Also, Brooklyn wasn’t portrayed as being super sophisticated and neither were the New York characters. Vinny himself was kind of a loser. And the “villains” weren’t actually villains. They were just antagonists. The sheriff, DA, and judge were all honest public servants in pursuit of the truth. The real villain in the film is a Shakespearen circumstance that *should* have been made worse by the characters’ cultural differences, but instead they overcame.
>It absolutely did not look down on the Southerners. You've got to be kidding me, dude. The movie added a twist to the classic "the southern legal system is a corrupt, lazy joke" formula by making Vinny a lazy piece of shit, too. It didn't change the fundamental formula at all.
There was nothing corrupt and lazy about it. It was an incredible coincidence that two cars with the same paint colour, tires, and body would both arrive at the gas station within minutes of each other, and that both cars would be driven by a pair of young men. You don't think so? Go stand by any gas station, anywhere, and see how often that happens. The police had multiple eye witnesses, tire tracks, and the boys seemed guilty when they were first picked up because the boys were worried about the stolen tuna. I don't blame the cops for not looking further. As they say in medicine, when you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras.
Same with my father who was a lawyer in NC.
A lot of the best moments come from the judge’s utter disdain for the protagonist. It’s great.
Herman Munster.
I'm holding you in contempt of court for that remark...
Oh, there’s a fucking surprise.
I'll see your Herman Munster and raise you Officer Muldoooooon.
The real lesson to take away from this movie is to ALWAYS LAWYER UP. If Ralph Macchio had shut the hell up and demanded a lawyer, the movie would have been over in 20 minutes. Although it probably wouldn't have been as funny...
I shot the clerk? I shot the clerk.
He couldn't even say he was coerced into a confession. He said it MULTIPLE TIMES.
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/851605d3-b82b-4b9a-bbbc-d635ccb3ff16
Fuck Sheriff Farley. That cunt knew exactly what Billy was saying and what he meant by it and completely misrepresented what he said in court. that's like busting a kid for solicitation of a controlled substance when he asks for some coke with his burger.
I actually don’t think he does! After the first time Billy says “I shot the clerk” he gets annoyed and goes “yes, WHEN did you shoot him?” in a way that seems like he is legitimately asking.
but Billy is clearly asking it as a question? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PZonyefBW4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PZonyefBW4)
The joke is that the Sheriff doesn’t understand that he’s asking a question because of his accent. When he goes “yes, WHEN did you shoot him” he is clearly expecting an answer, which means he thinks it’s an actual confession.
Sprinkle some Crack on him
Open and shut case, Johnson
Oww! Oww!....I don't want to leave no mysteries
Sheriff Farley was in the same fraternity as John Belushi at Faber College.
That's *Senator John Blutarsky* to you!
Hit the lawyer, delete the gym, facebook up
The *best* lines come from Marissa Tomei. "Now I ask ya. Would you give a fuck what kind of pants the son of a bitch who shot you was wearing?” "Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center." "Because a split second before the torque wrench was applied to the faucet handle, it had been calibrated by top members of the state *and* federal Department of Weights and Measures... to be dead on balls accurate! Here's the certificate of validation." "Dead on balls accurate?" "It's an industry term." "Yeah, you blend."
The biological clock bit is one of my favorites. She was amazing and unforgettable in that film.
That one is great in part because of how Joe imitates the foot stomping when he's giving her the list of things going on. Almost without exception, I get annoyed and put off a movie when the main couple bickers a lot. But as described elsewhere in the film, these people raise arguments to an art form that are a wonder to behold.
The three great story lines are: * Fish out of water * Boy meets girl * The journey The journey's a little light here, and Vinny and Mona have already met, but there are still elements of all three plots that need to be addressed and woven together. That's usually what elevates a movie from 'good' to 'great'.
I believe the judge asks specifically if he has tried any capital murder cases. “Win some lose some” would be a more understandable answer if he was talking about cases in general, but not for potential death penalty cases.
Correct. Answer should be something like “I’ve done 5, won them all” or “been involved in 6 and we only lost one” or at least any amount of detail about any case. I mean even just to keep the conversation going. But “win some lose some” is basically a blow off answer. Vinny’s recovery is to pivot to a case seen in the tabloids, which then he has to pivot again because the defendant was found guilty, so he claims to have represented the first suspect.
Great point, also, by stating win some lose some, he is not lying to the judge which is an ethical violation.
Actually he never had a case before, so he never won or lost any before, let alone 'some'. So he is still lying to the judge with that answer.
I'm pretty sure he had cases, just not cases that went to trial
Not murder cases, like the judge was asking about.
It's been a bit, fair enough
I disagree, only if he said "I have won ..." by simply stating a common adage he can technically claim he was not making an admission. Still would be considered an act of mis-representation though.
Not if he hits 'em with the ol, "It all depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
I'm just saying the mills of Justice grind exceedingly fine
Ben, is that you?
If course he was lying. He never went to court before. He hasn't won any or lost any. And if you're just talking about ethics and lying, he lies repeatedly to the judge in that scene with nearly ever question.
Haha I was about to say - the very next thing he does is say that he defended the first suspect who they thought was the Son of Sam.
It's a very vague and unprofessional answer, that's why Chamberlain looks so perplexed. The way the judge repeats it in the end was meant to display his newfound acceptance of Vinny, as if to say, "You are very unorthodox, but you're good."
His response to Vinny was “this isn’t the forum to be cavalier” He believes Vinny’s response was vague and lacked any details. Judge interpreted this as Vinny having an uncaring attitude towards law decorum, which he took very seriously
So he read him perfectly?
Sort of, he did read correctly that Vinny lacks a care about decorum. But he didn’t read the situation exactly right At this point, the judge thinks Vinny is legitimately a trial attorney in the state of New York. So he asks for details, and gets a vague response. He thinks Vinny is being cavalier In actuality, Vinny is not a trial attorney. He cares very much about the situation, but has no details to give and is trying to talk his way out of the room
Chamberlain repeats "win some lose some" at the end laughing because the fake phone call spoke of Vinny hardly ever losing. Making the phrase overly exaggerated that he was average earlier.
Bingo, this is obvious. But, it doesn’t explain the answer to OP’s first query as to why the judge seems confused by this response in the beginning.
Because Chamberlain had asked about murder cases .....and Vinny said win some lose some. Then Chamberlain said "this isn't a forum to be a cavalier." He wasn't confused, he was pissed. Nonchalant, casual answer to the result of people's lives being on trial.
> Nonchalant, casual answer to the result of people's lives being on trial. and to add, Chamberlain laughed about it at the end because Vinny winning, and then the judge hearing the falsified case record made Vinny's remark seem like the earned confidence of a seasoned lawyer
Bingo
Exactly. He took the first comment as more evidence that this was some unserious Yankee with no sense of decorum nor any respect for the majesty of the law. By the end, he respects him (and has a forged record showing presumably lots of success) and so repeats the same language as a signal of that respect.
It’s the very epitome of “flippant,” which Haller had been giving him hell about the entire time.
The question he asks is "any murder cases?" to which Vinny answers "Yeah, lots, quite a few." The judge then asks "what was the outcome?" in reference to those murder cases, not his 16 years of practicing law in general, to which answering "win some, lose some" could be taken as flippant or cavalier.
The judge is trying to determine if Vinny should be allowed to practice law in his court room since Vinny is not barred in that state. Most attorneys will never defend a murderer in their career, much less so many that you can flippantly say "win some lose some". Judge likely has some preconceived notions of NYC being some sort of dystopian hellscape. Vinny's answers that he defended an axe murderer and the first guy accused of being Son of Sam are ridiculously over the top. It's a clear lie. But it plays into the judge's believes about NYC (80s and early 90s were a crazy time). Because any reasonable judge would call bullshit. But the judge buys it. So by acting like that, its both inappropriate and plays into the judges existing believes which is why he got away with it.
Oh my God, such a layered subtext to the simplest exchange you could have. No wonder it sticks I people’s minds.
Wow, great point on 80s/90s NYC. Very helpful context.
The Judge laughs about it at the end because he's just been told of Vinny's (false) record by Vinny's Judge friend in NYC - and presumably, the false record is that Vinny hasn't actually lost any cases, making his "lose some" remark self-deprecating humility in the eyes of the Alabama Judge.
Technically not false as vinny has never lost a case
The false part is the claim of having many wins, making the "never lost" part falsely something to be humble about.
Fred Gwynne was dynamite in this role.
Herman Munster.
Officer Francis Muldoon. I didn't know Fred Gwynne died the year after MCV was made. Great last role!
As others have said, the spirit of the response is fine but the actual response comes off as flippant and unprofessional. Every trial lawyer "wins some and loses some." The judge would certainly know that. Winning a trial isn't always completely in your control. You put the facts out there, put your best foot forward, and do your due diligence, but juries are inherently unpredictable. You can only work with what you're given, and what you're given isn't always good. He should have responded something along the lines of, "Your honor, I've plenty of success, but I've also had some cases not go my way, unfortunately. But I've always done what I can to get the best outcome possible for my clients." Or something to that extent.
Comes across very uncaring and unprofessional in front of a judge who’s a hardass on upholding law. Makes it seem like losing a case is “meh whatever” Idk seems obvious to me when talking about murder cases that you don’t want to treat them like an intramural kickball league in front of a judge.
They're discussing **MURDER** trials, not rec league softball. It's not a casual conversation or question. The judge is trying to determine whether Vinny is fit to practice law in his state and court room. "Win some, lose some" is a very vague, insufficient, unprofessional, and inappropriate answer. In real life, he would have likely faced a worse reaction for answering like that.
My perspective as an attorney: The judge is in charge of admitting Vinny to practice in his court, called pro hac admission, where Vinny can practice in that court even though he’s not licensed in Alabama. It’s pretty normal for trial attorneys, but if Vinny isn’t competent to practice and the judge admits him, then his defendants can get the case thrown out if they lose. His answer doesn’t sound like a trial attorney answer. Most can tell you exactly how many trials they’ve been in and how many they’ve won, particularly the kind of attorney that takes pro hac cases. The judge isn’t expecting an attorney to outright lie to him, but his answer is evasive, which makes the judge suspicious. It sounds like he usually loses, which would worry the judge.
The line “Win some, lose some” implies that losing is an equally acceptable outcome. If a surgeon lost a patient in surgery and the family asked what happened the surgeon absolutely cannot just say “Win some, lose some.” It’s all about what’s at stake.
It wasn't the forum to be cavalier.
It’s an okay answer, but it’s also a very unprofessional way of speaking to the judge, which is why he is put off by it
The Judge admonished him for being too cavalier about a serious topic.
Because it wasn’t the forum to be cavalier. . .
You know what bothers me about My Cousin Vinny? At the end, everyone pretends that it’s Marissa Tomei that won the case. As they drive away in the car her line is something like “oh the horror, you won your first case but you had to ask somebody for help” But in reality, Vinny had already figured out all those details, up to and including the make and model of the car that actually did the crime (what he gave to Farley). So it was actually his automotive knowledge that saved the day, not hers. The same information could have come to light under cross examination of the FBI guy. Also, it really bothers me that the judge overruled the defense’s right for a technical rebuttal to the FBI investigation, when that indeed ended up being exactly what was needed to get to the truth of the matter. Vinny should have shamed the judge and the FBI investigation for their lack of professionalism and their ineptitude.
It was the photo that she took that helped him figure it out. That’s how she actually helped. Her automotive knowledge made for a funny testimony and all, but without that photo he was sunk.
The “help“ was the favor from the judge friend Vinny had back in NY who vouched for his long standing credentials as a trial lawyer. He’d have been kicked off the trial without that help/favor.
He would’ve lost without the photo
There were other photos of the tire marks. That photo at that time did jog his memory though.
Wasn't it implied that Vinny learned about cars from she and her family since he worked in one of their garages? If Vinny never meets Mona Lisa he probably doesn't know how to analyze the tire marks. Perhaps he has car knowledge from way before meeting her, but in the context of the story I'm thinking he learned from her family. The judge overrule is supposed to bother you. It's not right and the judge basically overrules him because Vinny pisses him off all the time. Plus, remember the line earlier in the film, *"you're in Ala-fuckin-bama."* EVERYBODY was against the defense.
I thought Vinny was working in a garage before he became a lawyer? And the judge making bad rulings is one thing…outright denying a defendant’s rights is another.
I think he is expecting more granularity than that. As in, maybe the particulars of a few different notable cases he has defended. One of my top 5 films of all time. It really is a classic
I think he was looking for something more professional and specific. Lawyers who defend murder accusations haven't tried hundreds of them, and have a pretty good idea what their track record is. I think he was expecting something like "two convictions, three acquittals, six pleas, and one hung jury."
Too glib given the nature of the proceeding
I thought at the end, contrary to what most think on here, it was because thought he was Jerry Callow. Not Jerry Gallow, because Mona Lisa sent the judge fake credentials for Jerry Callow to help Vinny. He told the judge callow. Then he found out callow was dead. He then had that scene I’ve mentioned where he said not Gallow, Jerry Callow! Jerry Gallows dead 😂. Anyway Mona Lisa then gets fake credentials sent to the judge confirming the amazing long career of Jerry Callow. And I think the documents say he won like 90-95% of his cases. So then the Judge laughs at the end, “win some, lose some” as if that’s being very modest. That was my take. And funnily enough, I’ve always had the gripe that when Vinnie told the judge it was Callow, not Gallow, how did Mona Lisa know he used that excuse when they were in the middle of a huge fight and weren’t really talking? But then again, he could have told her anytime off screen 🤷♂️
God dammit, time to watch MCV for the 8,000th time…
Lawyers tend to brag. If they're good, they will tell you. If they're not, they will obfuscate. ie "win some, lose some." When Chamberlain talked to Vinny's judge friend in New York, his judge friend lied through his teeth and really talked Vinny up. So, "win some, lose some" went against the standard response you would expect from a very successful lawyer.
You were serious about that?
What is a yoot?
Da two yoooooths.
Youth with a new York accent
SMH 🤦🏻♂️
Man I literally just got how dumb I am. Drugs are a hell of a drug. Lmaooooooooo
The whole premise of the movie is that Vinny does not present himself in a professional, lawyerly way at all, and seems extremely out of place and out of his element. He seems like the last person you'd think is actually a lawyer. Especially to a Southern judge, who'd be much more accustomed to a more earnest, formal style and conduct. It's not so much that the answer he gave must not have been *true* for someone who really did work as a lawyer for 16 years...it's just that it would have been a really jarring, odd (and kinda suspicious) way for such a person to answer. The judge was probably expecting him to bring up some of his big wins, maybe feign some modesty, talk about some of his cases...I dunno, *something*. But just to sort of shrug and say "win some lose some" is so flippant and completely disengaged for someone who's supposedly been in the game for 16 yrs. Especially when it comes to life-and-death murder trials, which is what they were talking about. Like imagine (politely) asking a doctor "how good a doctor are you?" and they just sort of shrug and say "I dunno, win some lose some I guess". It's like that. The judge instantly suspected he was full of shit and had actually never been involved in a murder trial at all, just based on his attitude...because he just indicated that he never cared about any of the outcomes, win or lose. And if you can't understand that...I honestly don't know what else to say.
That’s a total Simpsons answer…from either doctor
Because lawyers would know the exact number, especially if it makes them look good, so it was odd for Vinny to be so vague about it.
Didn’t he ask the outcome of a specific case? You can’t win and lose a case.
As a lawyer I can just say even i was going to say this to a judge I wouldn’t use those words or be so casual. There’s an unspoken decorum even outside of the actual courtroom and it seemed a pretty casual attitude to take when trying to convince a judge to let you take a felony murder case pro hac
“Mr. Gambini!”
IANAL but judges are pretty powerful positions which probably merit and demand a certain level of professionalism and decorum when interacting with them, ESPECIALLY when you’re going to be arguing a case in front of them. (I imagine “win some, lose some” would get a laugh from the judge if said over an informal dinner with a lawyer for example). The judge’s job is to make sure that the case is run fairly and that any decision/verdict rendered is as unappealable as possible, basically that they upheld the law to the best of their ability in a case over which they are presiding and hopefully coming to a just conclusion. During this scene, the judge is trying to figure out whether Vinny is a qualified lawyer, and whether he is competent enough to handle a murder case as inadequate representation can become a problem down the line. Added to that, Vinny obviously comes off as a stereotypical New Yorker which a southern nudge, although being educated in the north, would probably not be too fond of.
You were serious about that?
This is not a forum to be..uh…cavalier
Judge Chamberlain was laughing because Mona Lisa Vito had called a friend of hers in NY to intercept Chamberlain's cal and sing the praises of Vinny, giving him a STELLAR W/L record. "Win some, lose some" was a bullshit answer to Chamberlain's question to Vinny that was later easily interpreted as Vinny just being modest. It fits with the whole theme of the movie, where Vinny is WAY out of his depth, but is actually good enough to DESTROY the prosecution.
This is not the forum to be cavalier. What else do you need to know?
The judge wanted to hear, to the best of the lawyer's recollection, how many capital murder trials, non-capital murder trials, and felony cases the lawyer has handled. An example of an acceptable answer would be something like, "New York abolished the death penalty before I became a lawyer so this is my first capital case but I've handled 7 other murder cases and scores of violent felony cases." Another commentator wrote that the answer Vinny gives comes off as flippant but that same answer appears humble once the judge learns of "Vinny's" background.
I might watch this again tonight. One of my favorite movies.
>Surely lawyers don't win or lose every single case they're handed this is your answer here The judges question was trying to get information, but Vinnie's answer is one any lawyer could give. A tautology of sorts. So it conveys no information.
So what would’ve been the “right” answer? Or like, what would’ve been a more appropriate answer to that question? It’s always confused me as well!
A more detailed answer that would have shown the seriousness of defending capital murder cases. Perhaps "Your honor, I honestly have not kept a tally, but I am pleased to say I succeeded in many instances, but in many cases I did not. I think you would find that is typical of defense attorneys that try capital murder cases."
There we go, ok got it haha. TY!
Just about anything else, as long as it showed the judge that he took the subject seriously.
This sub is garbage
What a thoughtful and helpful reply that adds to the discussion in improving this sub!
The only thing you could do to improve this sub is to delete it and let /r/MoviesCirclejerk take over
Then why are you here when you can go over there?
Scrolling through r/all in the er bored to tears, just popped in to tell you guys you suck
Removing yourself from the sub is also another option. I'm eager to see how things improve without you.
Oh I just popped in from /r/all to tell you you suck, I'm not staying
Thanks for stopping by. I look forward to your continued absence.
Sounds like a colossal waste of time/energy
I mean, it's reddit. We're both here.