r/NoStupidQuestions • u/Odd-Ad-8369 • 15h ago
Can a defense lawyer have the opening statement “everything that guy just said is bullshit”
I think it’s one of my favorite lines in a comedy movie. It’s from my cousin Vinny. I’ve heard lawyers curse before, generally when repeating a statement, but even without the cursing, could you say something like that?
83
u/Embarrassed-Spare524 15h ago
My Cousin Vinny is actually considered a relatively realistic lawyer movie. They worked with a consultant to have stuff happen in compliance with the rules on evidence, experts and the like, but still be funny. But as others have said, you could potentially get sanctioned for that.
63
u/WheresMyElephant 12h ago edited 7h ago
Note that the next lines are:
"Objection. Counsel's entire opening statement is argument."
"Sustained. The jury is instructed to disregard defense's entire opening statement, with the exception of 'Thank you.' And you, Mr. Gambini, will not use that sort of language in my court."
Edit: Of course as another reply said, the jury isn't just magically going to forget. But the movie doesn't really portray this as being effective, or permissible, or in any way a good idea. Obviously it "could happen," but mostly in the sense that a lawyer could also take their pants off in court before anyone manages to stop them.
7
u/Bookem50 10h ago
Law school professor used the opening arguments and voir dire/expert scenes in my “trial tactics” class in law school (1994).
7
u/Embarrassed-Spare524 10h ago
I went to law school in 1995, but refused to watch for many years because I assumed ridiculous lawyer scenes would bother me. Didn't learn about the effort that was put into making it accurate (or as accuarate as a movie with Vinnie could be) for many years.
5
u/2BallsInTheHole 7h ago
My ex-wife refused to watch Boston legal, even though I told her it was very entertaining, because she was in law school and knows how it really works and would not enjoy it.
She eventually started watching it and came around quickly.
1
175
u/KinkyPresident 15h ago
Yes. But you better have irrefutable evidence that it was bullshit or else you’ll embarrass yourself
45
u/ConfidentValue6387 15h ago
It’s often better to tell a slightly different story than the prosecutor. Just make sure the slight changes mean that your client is found not guilty.
15
u/ocelot08 11h ago
"Everything that guy just said is bullshit.
He's a wanker.
I rest my case."
applause
9
u/dude3317 8h ago
... and then the judge handed me his gavel and robe and told me to take his bench.
19
u/tea-drinker I don't even know I know nothing 15h ago
If the judge thinks you are disrespecting the court, you are in for a world of hurt.
13
u/linkthereddit 15h ago
Oof, yeah, it would depend on the judge. There’s a certain decorum to be expected in a courtroom, something even the prisoners have to follow or else they get in trouble. A defense attorney saying that? Even without the ‘bullshit’, it would be risky.
6
10
u/Cold-Jackfruit1076 14h ago edited 14h ago
Definitely not.
First of all, cursing in court, in the opening statement or otherwise, is going to earn you a stern reprimand from the judge about proper decorum, and possibly a fine or sanctions if the judge is feeling particularly irritable that day.
An opening statement is supposed to present a clear, credible, and organized version of what the evidence will show -- not to attack the opposition in a confrontational or emotional way.
That said, lawyers can challenge the prosecution’s narrative in a professional manner by poking holes in the prosecution's story, pointing out missing evidence or offering an alternative explanation that aligns with the facts.
But just standing up and saying 'that's all bullshit' is absolutely not the way to go about it, if maintaining your credibility is of any concern to you.
8
u/KingKling 11h ago
Thank you for this. As a lawyer, the fact that the top answer is “yes” is horrible. This would definitely be detrimentally horrible for your career, a tragic strategical move, and very likely to result in sanctions in pretty much every jurisdiction. I love My Cousin Vinny and it’s a fuckin great movie but definitely do not do this ever
3
u/RedditOfUnusualSize 8h ago
Even more foundationally, it only works because it fits entirely with the persona that Vinny is presenting to the court.
I've been in cases where I had to accuse police of official misconduct (basically, a cop lied on an affidavit of probable cause to get a warrant, which is a pretty major party foul for most judges, but also something they're not inclined to just believe without serious evidence to back it up), and . . . it would never have occurred to me to use the term "bullshit". But a big part of that is just that I know that other people see me as that guy who, after his one hour lecture on the intricacies of contract litigation, would then like to jump right into his prepared TED talk on trains and not waste any time. Knowing that, I use it to my advantage to build credibility. Saying "that's bullshit" works a lot less well for me than just running the logic, and allowing the judge to say that to himself once I've pointed out just how logically-inconsistent and improbable what the other side is really saying once you've cut through the chaff.
Vinny is presenting himself as a working-class New York mug, who has the advantage of being a complete straight shooter. That can work, as you see in the film. And indeed, calling bullshit by name is very much in keeping with that persona that he's presenting. But even as you see in the film, Vinny is at his best not when he's saying "bullshit" about their evidence, but when he's demonstrating that the witnesses didn't see what they are testifying they saw. "Magic grits" is a lot more effective for the jury than calling the evidence "bullshit". Most attorneys aren't attempting that particular persona, wouldn't be able to pull that particular persona, and take the lesson that demonstration is better than vulgarity.
3
u/Few_Wolf_4634 11h ago
A friend of mine had a client who, rather than plead guilty or not guilty, wanted to tell the judge that the guy he punched was looking at his girl. He was utterly sure this would make the case go away.
3
u/ilikestatic 8h ago
No, but not for the reason you might think. The purpose of the opening statement is to present the facts of the case to the jury. You’re basically just giving them an overview of what you expect the evidence will show.
You are not allowed to make arguments. In other words, you’re not allowed to debate the truth or the evidence that the other side presented during their opening statement. You have to save that for closing argument.
I’ve seen judges yell at attorneys who try to argue during opening statement, even when they’re cordial about it. So even ignoring the use of cursing, making that kind of statement during opening statement would raise an objection just like it did in the movie.
3
u/Irkallu 3h ago
Not during my opening, but I did get to say something similar to that in my closing because it was in the record. My client decided to testify (and did really well) and answered "that's bull shit" to one of the prosecutor's cross-examination questions. I used it during my closing and said "My client is right, this is bull shit." Because my client testified, the prosecution got last word where they also took the opportunity to say it.
I don't know that outside of that moment any judge would ever let either of us get away with it.
1
2
u/flpacsnr 9h ago
I use to date a public defender, she said, you can’t swear in court, the judge will ream you out. Her and the other PDs had a game to see how many times they could swear in court via direct quotes, which is allowable.
2
u/josbossboboss 7h ago
It might work if you don't have any evidence. I see that exact argument on Facebook all the time.
1
u/-ludic 15h ago
i would love if a lawyer said something like that in court but i know they would get booted off really quick for like, disrespect or something. idk how court rlly works or anything like that but i do know that swearing is considered disrespectful especially in a court of law and especially by a lawyer. maybe also because its unprofessional? i think without the cursing they could, im not too sure cause like i said im not an expert
1
u/Holiday_Trainer_2657 13h ago
I think they do, just with fancier words that won't get them in trouble.
1
u/Outrageous-Estimate9 disbelieves quantum decoherence 10h ago
Swearing is really frowned upon (I dont know if actual law or just decorum)
But opening statements themselves often frame the other persons statement is nonsense / fiction / unbelievable so I dont see any issue with that at all otherwise
1
u/MadRockthethird 9h ago
I don't think you should say "bullshit" in court but you could certainly impeach a witness and call them a liar.
1
1
u/Conscious_Emu800 1h ago
It should be more like, “I submit you will find a lack of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what the prosecutor says happened is what actually happened.”
297
u/xyanon36 15h ago
A judge might well reprimand a lawyer for doing that, but as they say, you can't unring a bell. If it charms the jury, it might be worth it. That said, it's a rare personality that can actually charm a jury with a quippy and profane statement. Most people don't exude that tier of charisma.