My Cousin Vinny Analysis

After watching "My Cousin Vinny", viewers understand that Billy Gambini and Stan Rothenstein accidentally shoplifted a can of tuna while stopping at a convenience store. After they leave the store, the clerk is shot and killed, and Billy and Stan are arrested in connection with the murder. Due to circumstantial evidence and a confession to shoplifting misconstrued as one to the shooting, Billy is charged with murder, and Stan is charged as an accessory. The pair call Billy's mother, who tells her son that there is an attorney in the family, his cousin Vinny. Furthermore, the defensive side clearly stated a not guilty plea against the state of Alabama. When declaring these two men 'not guilty' comes with trial and error with cousin Vinny. It took cousin Vinny multiple times to finally understand what the judge wanted out of him. Therefore, cousin Vinny started persuading the audience of Alabama as well as the jury in the stands that this whole case was …show more content…
In the sac-of-suds parking lot were two tire marks. In court, Vito stated "The car that made these two, equal-length tire marks had positraction. You can't make those marks without positraction, which was not available on the '64 Buick Skylark"("My Cousin Vinny") This clearly states that the two men in the court room did not make those marks and she went on to say "now, in the '60's, there were only two other cars made in America that had positraction, and independent rear suspension, and enough power to make these marks. One was the Corvette, which could never be confused with the Buick Skylark. The other had the same body length, height, width, weight, wheel base, and wheel track as the '64 Skylark, and that was the 1963 Pontiac Tempest"("My Cousin Vinny") Also, since both of these cars were made by GM, they both were offered in a mint green paint. This testimony proved there were two other men out there that did this