42

In one of my favorite films of all time, 1992's My Cousin Vinny, at the end of the trial when it's abundantly clear the prosecution will lose, at least that's the conclusion the filmmakers want the audience to surmise, Trotter pronounces... "the state would like to dismiss all charges."

enter image description here

And . . . as per Hollywood, everyone rejoices.

I am fully aware movies are movies and not real life and the film is a pure work of fiction. Since I have no direct connection to anyone in the legal field, I thought I would ask some knowledgeable users about something that's always had me wondering. (Just saw the film again tonight.)

I am aware that an acquittal means one can not be tried for the same crime again (double jeopardy). But a dismissal may not provide such protection. Acquittal meaning the prosecution could not prove the defendant committed the crime, whereas dismissal may allow for retrial.

So, is there a legal basis for Trotter dismissing a case merely because he'll clearly lose? Common sense leans towards thinking this may be "Hollywood fluff" and it could not actually happen at the final stages of a trial so close to jury deliberation. But.. again, I don't really know.

I think this is fluff because if it were actually possible, why wouldn't all prosecutors merely drop charges if they fear they are going to lose, then go build a better case and retry the defendant.

Are the requirement for an actual dismissal more stringent than the film would have the audience believe or in this aspect, is the film pretty close to reality?

(I am referencing U.S. criminal law in general)

Scott
  • 1,664
  • 1
  • 17
  • 25
  • 7
    "dismissal is as if the trial never happened" — that's a false premise. Where did you get it from? Trial does not even need to start for double jeopardy protection to apply in future. All that is needed is the charge i.e. formal start of the prosecution. – Greendrake Jan 26 '22 at 12:27
  • 11
    @greendrake In the United States, at least, that is not correct. Jeopardy attaches when voir dire begins. – bdb484 Jan 26 '22 at 12:30
  • 12
    "Acquittal meaning it's been proven the defendant did not commit the crime". An acquittal means the state did not prove that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; the defendant doesn't need to prove their innocence. – Lithium Jan 26 '22 at 20:32
  • 11
    Yes, it’s fiction but My Cousin Vinny is one of the most accurate portrayals of a criminal case in film. Amped up for comedic value of course. – Dale M Jan 26 '22 at 21:30
  • I sometimes forget how much words matter to those in the legal professions. :) I clarified a bit -- stuff I knew, and agree with in the comments, but perhaps phrased poorly for this particular community initially. – Scott Jan 27 '22 at 00:24
  • 1
    While most movies/shows are awful when it comes to portraying the legal system, apparently this movie is one of the best when it comes to accuracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1I7QBCHqng – eps Jan 27 '22 at 00:25
  • 4
    It should be noted, that the director Jonathan Lynn has a law degree from Cambridge University. I think that helped a lot in its accuracy. – Bib Jan 27 '22 at 11:51
  • Indeed, IIRC several noted judges and at least one SCOTUS Justice praised the movie for its accuracy -- and itrs comedy value. – David Siegel Jan 28 '22 at 00:09
  • @bdb484: Do you have a source for that? I was under the impression that double jeopardy protection attached when a plea was entered. – sharur Jan 28 '22 at 00:56
  • @sharur I am pretty sure that bdb484 is correct here, although I have no source to hand at the moment.This would actually make a good separate question.See also https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/28178/how-could-a-mistrial-trigger-double-jeopardy-in-the-o-j-simpson-murder-trial – David Siegel Jan 28 '22 at 14:26
  • Edits to this question re being discussed at https://law.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1396/re-indicatins-of-edits-allowed-in-questions – David Siegel Jan 28 '22 at 16:00
  • 1
    @sharur Martinez v. Illinois, 572 U.S. 833 (2014) ("Our cases have repeatedly stated the bright-line rule that 'jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn.'”). – bdb484 Jan 28 '22 at 17:52
  • @DavidSiegel The American Bar Association lists My Cousin Vinny as the third greatest court room film in American Cinema, behind "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "12 Angry Men" and beating the very quotable "A Few Good Men." To my own knowledge it's the only media depiction of a Voir Dire in all of American Cininima. – hszmv Jul 25 '23 at 12:47
  • From a story writing perspective, one of the reasons it was done was that Trotter was never written to be a villain and was simply a good man who was doing his job. Vinny's villain isn't anyone in the court but his ignorance of court room behavior (if there is anyone in the court room who is malicious to Vinny, it's the judge who overrules a valid objection to spite Vinny.) – hszmv Jul 25 '23 at 12:52

3 Answers3

61

This is entirely possible in a number of different motions that could have been made. At this point, Vinny had destroyed the Prosecutor's eyewitnesses by showing they had issues that called their testimony into question (The first has a timeline that doesn't line up with events, the second has poor vision and her prescription glasses were not doing their job, and the third had many obstructions blocking his view of the scene). His first witness tears apart the "expert" witness, who was only there to testify that the tires were the same brand (albeit, a popular brand at the time... loads of cars had the same tires).

While it might go by a different name in different jurisdictions, the Prosecutor is allowed to make a motion to dismiss at any point prior to the jury goes to deliberation (as is the Defense; Also they might be able to make motions while the jury is in deliberations).

If properly titled, the Prosecutor should have made a "motion for nolle prosequi" (not prosecuting). This can mean any number of things including the prosecutor no longer believes the evidence can prove the charges OR even that the prosecutor is no longer convinced that those charged committed the crime.

In the "My Cousin Vinny" case, as the jury was seated the case cannot be retried by the State of Alabama at this point.

This is possible because the Prosecutor's duty is to uncover the truth behind a crime, no matter what that truth becomes. In this case, despite his previous beliefs, the prosecutor in My Cousin Vinny, upon realizing he was wrong, admitted it and dropped the charges. Given his backstory of having worked as a defense attorney and making the switch after getting a client off some serious charges (and knowing the client was guilty) shows that he was inherently an honest man and dedicated to finding the truth of the matter (as a government employee, he undoubtedly took a pay cut when he switched to prosecution. Private industry almost always pays way more than a government equivalent). With that in mind, it is expected of prosecutors to be perfectly honest with what evidence they have and make the choices in the case based on that evidence. This comes up in another scene when Mona Lisa Vito explains to Vinny that the prosecutor was required to give Vinny all the files he had on the case... because Vinny, by representing the Defendant, is allowed to examine all evidence against his clients. The only dirty trick he pulled was the stunt where his expert witness was not disclosed and while bad, really it's the judge allowing the witness to testify that would have caused a problem with the trial (his response to Vinny's objection could have created a mistrial on appeal).

To give a real world example, I was charged with driving on a suspended license which I had no idea I was doing at the time. As it turned out, the license was suspended for an unpaid traffic ticket that I had paid in the last minute... essentially the DMV forgot to unsuspend. A quick call fixed that issue but I still had to go to court over the charge. The day of the trial, I show up in the court room and the prosecutor walks over and tells me that they were going to enter a motion of "nolle prosequi" for the charge... essentially dropping it... because the matter was a clerical error on the state's part and not anything I did wrong.

Edit: Additionally had the prosecutor not motioned to dismiss, Vinny certainly could have. In fact there are two points during the trial where Defense attorneys are expected to make these motions. The first is when the Prosecution rests their case. The second is before the jury is given the case to deliberate.

As for why it was called a motion to dismiss in the film, it's likely to due with the fact that the audience would not know what a "motion for nolle prosecui" and it is a type of motion to dismiss.

Braiam
  • 103
  • 3
hszmv
  • 22,994
  • 3
  • 41
  • 65
  • 7
    Thanks for the thorough explanation! And you're correct. I'd have no clue what nolle prosecui meant. – Scott Jan 26 '22 at 19:45
  • 3
    It may be worth noting that not only was the case likely unwinnable at that point, and not only was the prosecutor probably convinced of the defendents' innocence, but also two other individuals had already been identified and arrested who were probably the actual culprits. – Thom Smith Jan 26 '22 at 21:40
  • 2
    "there are two points during the trial where Defense attorneys are expected to make these motions" - By "expected" do you mean that it's what always happens (hey, why not try, might get lucky) or do you mean that those are the two appropriate times to ask for a dismissal if they think they have a reasonable chance? – Readin Jan 27 '22 at 03:16
  • 2
    The trigger that forced the prosecution to concede was nothing to do with Vinny "destroying" the case - yes, he was doing well up to that point, but the reason the state conceded was because they caught the real suspects in possession of the murder weapon and getaway vehicle. – J... Jan 27 '22 at 14:19
  • 1
    @J... Not according to the film. The prosecutor himself says "in light of Ms. Vito's and Mr. Wilbur's testimony, the state would like to dismiss all charges." He says nothing of the other arrest (which was related by the sheriff). – TypeIA Jan 27 '22 at 14:55
  • 3
    @TypeIA That line is literally the very next thing the prosecutor says after the sheriff confirmed that the weapon they found in the other suspects' vehicle was a .357 magnum and matched the calibre of bullet used in the murder. The smoking gun was the smoking gun. – J... Jan 27 '22 at 15:07
  • 1
    the Prosecutor's duty is to uncover the truth behind a crime, no matter what that truth becomes - Now I need to print a couple hundred letters and send a friendly reminder to a lot of DA's. – Mindwin Remember Monica Jan 27 '22 at 16:18
  • 1
    "Private industry almost always pays way more than a government equivalent" - Citation required – Richard Jan 27 '22 at 17:04
  • @Richard from what I understand it depends on the branch of law. Criminal defense is almost always underpaid and overworked government employees [compared with ones in DA offices]. – Maja Piechotka Jan 27 '22 at 17:15
  • "the Prosecutor's duty is to uncover the truth behind a crime". I thought the prosecutor's duty is to win at all costs, damn the facts, so as to enhance his or her career. – RonJohn Jan 27 '22 at 18:40
  • 2
    @Readin: I suspect the answer is that the defense almost always makes those motions to dismiss, because otherwise you would forfeit the issue on appeal. If you somehow don't have grounds for a motion to dismiss, you can at the very least try to claim that the prosecution's evidence is "insufficient" or some such argument, although that rarely works because the standard for such a dismissal is quite high (judges prefer to let juries decide whether the evidence is strong enough). – Kevin Jan 27 '22 at 20:15
  • About your traffic case: You did technically drive on a suspended license, though, didn't you? So wouldn't that mean you broke the law, and that the prosecutor was therefore really just cutting you a break? – moonman239 Jan 28 '22 at 01:49
  • 1
    I had pretty much the same situation in Georgia ca 2002: paid a ticket at the last minute, license suspended, hit a roadblock, got arrested. In my case, the prosecutor told me that he had discretion to charge me with either a misdemeanor or a felony, and that if I pled to the misdemeanor we could resolve the case now, otherwise I could defend myself against the felony charge. You know what I picked. – Chris Strickland Jan 28 '22 at 15:00
  • 2
    @ChrisStrickland Prosecutors like that should go to prison. Full stop. – reirab Jan 28 '22 at 20:06
  • 1
    @moonman239 I believe in every state, California at least for sure, "invalid/illegal suspension" is a valid and total defense to a charge of driving on a suspended license. – zibadawa timmy Aug 28 '22 at 19:00
  • @Richard Personal experience. I more than doubled my salary when I switched for Government to Private Industry. Not a lawyer job, but it is a white-collar job either way. It's generally accepted standard among most government workers that the trade off in pay comes with some nicer benefits and job stability (The Government is not likely to downsize or have mass layoffs and it's pretty difficult for them to fire people.) – hszmv Jul 25 '23 at 12:36
  • 1
    @moonman239 Except that the law stated the state had to remove the suspension on receipt of payment and they were more than happy to take my money. Like I said, between the traffic stop and my court appearance, I had made sure that the record was corrected. I suspect the suspension was lifted and backdated to the date the payment was received so by the time the prosecutors went to verify, they didn't see any evidence of the problem. Either way, they didn't tell me why specifically and I didn't ask, because I didn't want to give them a reason to change their mind. – hszmv Jul 25 '23 at 12:42
  • @MaciejPiechotka It's my understanding that in the U.S. justice system, Public Defenders are overworked, but typically will make the same pay as the prosecutor for the same level of promotion (since they are both government employees). Although Trotter never openly states it, his backstory was that of a Private Defense attorney, who can charge way more for their services. In the U.S. Public Defenders Offices are intended to provide Criminal Defense to those who cannot afford the services of a Private Practicing Attorney and check finances on client intake to make sure that is the case. – hszmv Jul 25 '23 at 12:59
  • @TypeIA: The sherrif's verbal conformation that the actual suspects had been caught would be insufficient to serve as any legal basis for anything. I would be surprised if prosecutors who decide to abandon a case wouldn't be strongly expected to state an "official" reason. I would think that a more "legally correct" way of handling things would have been to call a recess so that affidavits regarding the capture and the smoking gun could be typed up and faxed over. Such affidavits would normally not be accepted, but would be admissible if the prosecutor stipulates their veracity. – supercat Dec 04 '23 at 18:19
  • @TypeIA: I don't know how formal I'd expect the prosecutor and judge to be in real life, but I'd expect that the prosecutor would ask and be granted a brief recess to independently verify the claims that the actual crooks were captured and the smoking gun was found. Though the specific details of the movie's case would suggest that it might have been appropriate to have the procecution and defense arrange to have the defendant's car's drivetrain examined to confirm that it didn't have any aftermarket alternations that could have produced the tire tracks. – supercat Dec 04 '23 at 18:25
28

Such dismissals are uncommon, but they are permissible. Rules of criminal procedure vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but they will generally permit the government to dismiss charges when it thinks doing so is in the interests of justice.

For example, Fed. Crim. R. 48(a) says:

The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant's consent.

The defendant may or may not wish to consent, because there are two types of dismissals: with prejudice and without prejudice. When a case is dismissed with prejudice, it means that the government may not refile the charges or seek a new trial. If the case is dismissed without prejudice, the government may or may not be able to make another attempt, depending on various circumstances.

It would therefore be quite rare for the defendant to object to a dismissal with prejudice, though he may wish to continue through his trial if the dismissal is without prejudice.

Note also that a prosecutor is not only permitted to seek such a dismissal, he may also be required to do so. Rule 3.8 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct require that a prosecutor "refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause."

bdb484
  • 58,968
  • 3
  • 129
  • 184
  • Absent any objection, is there any real reason that the plea would need to be more formal than shown in the movie? – fectin Jan 27 '22 at 00:58
  • Not usually. Some jurisdictions might require it to be in writing, but even then it's probably just going to be a simple form to fill out. – bdb484 Jan 27 '22 at 03:56
3

A prosecutor can file a motion to dismiss, and they can file the motion for dismissal with prejudice or without prejudice. With prejudice means that the case can't be filed again (note that if two different jurisdictions, such two states or a state and the federal government, file charges for the same underlying facts, that's not considered the "same case), without prejudice means it can be filed again.

In either case, it's not the prosecution dismissing the charges, it's the prosecution filing a motion to dismiss, with the court (i.e. the judge) making the final decision as to whether to dismiss. The defendant can oppose the motion, but they would have little reason to do so with a motion with prejudice. A motion for dismissal without prejudice would probably be fought quite vigorously by the defense, and it would require the state showing misconduct on the part of the defense perverting the course of justice, such as the defendant bribing jury members.

Acccumulation
  • 6,095
  • 10
  • 28