Regular price: $19.95
Buy Now with 1 Credit
Buy Now for $19.95
As a criminal defense attorney trying cases for 24 years I can say that the feelings, emotions and decision making in this book are spot on.
Some of the thought process I thought were unique to my own cases I now realize are commonplace among experienced trial lawyers.
Would you consider the audio edition of Anatomy of a Jury to be better than the print version?
How could I possibly know? I didn't view the print version.
What other book might you compare Anatomy of a Jury to and why?
I would venture to say that it's a weak "any" Grisham book.
Did Peter Powlus do a good job differentiating all the characters? How?
Mr. Powlus is quite monotone, which may be largely responsible for the boredom I experienced throughout. Trials are "my thing," as I have been involved in hundreds over several decades, and I am generally pleased to read or listen to fiction or nonfiction books. Quite disappointed that my mind wandered throughout.
Did you have an extreme reaction to this book? Did it make you laugh or cry?
Boredom and several inaccuracies.
Any additional comments?
Mr. Wishman claims he has prosecuted and defended (civil or criminal?) cases. How is it then that he states as fact that most (all) criminal defendants testify at trial.As this book is written about a criminal trial, I can only address Mr. Wishman's claim as to the testimony of a defendant. Mr. Wishman could not be more inaccurate as to his claim that most/nearly all defendants testify before the trier of fact. Not true. It is rare, indeed, that a criminal defendant testifies. In county, state and federal courts, I have been an integral part of hundreds of trials,ranging from the most boring (as in watching paint dry) engineering fiasco such as the settlement of the Sears building in D.C, federal agency civil cases, a horrific plane crash that occurred in whiteout conditions, killing all aboard, etc. Despite many interesting and not so interesting civil cases, criminal jury trials occurring during whiteout conditions ranging from a horrific plane crash which was due to whiteout conditions, and the like. In civil cases, a high percentage of defendants testify.However, as to criminal, contrary to the author's claim, very, very few defendants testify before the trier of fact. Why is this? Let me count the reasons: (1) a lawyer ethically cannot put a client on the witness stand who has admitted the crime to him/her (2) defendants tend to incriminate themselves as they are very poor, nervous witnesses (3) contradicting a police officer is fruitless, as police officers are the most experienced and confident criminal trial witnesses (4) juries, though instructed not to do so, often identify with the victim in a criminal case, (5) rarely have corroboration as to their version of events, and on and on and on.The reason I address this misstatement of most/nearly all/all criminal defendants is that the author claims a huge factor in the outcome of the case was the defendant not taking the witness stand. The author must not have been a trial attorney or he wouldn't have misled his readers. Maybe this particular "fact" as told by the author would slip past people as irrelevant, but it is not accurate and the author throws it in as a major factor in the outcome of the trial.
0 of 3 people found this review helpful