Helpful Score: 2
Interesting if you like court cases and jury tales. (Author is a kook, though.)
A Trial by Jury is a well-written book, of that there is no doubt.... it is a very credible point-of-view of the inner workings of a trial by jury. The reader will be particularly impressed by the well-reasoned and similarly well-stated conclusion about the awesome power of the state... A very good read and highly recommended. amazon review
The author is kind of pompous, but he knows it, and its his story, so thats okay.
The author is kind of pompous, but he knows it, and its his story, so thats okay.
This was just okay. It is written from the perspective a of jury member which was different. The style in which it written read more like a text book than a novel to me.
Got this book through paperbackswap.com. Think I added it to my wish list after seeing it on someone's recommended book list. It was a pretty quick read. I happen to be an attorney although I've never done any trial work.
The author is a pompous *** who pretty much looks down his nose at everyone involved in the trial--his fellow jurors, the judge, prosecutor, etc. With respect to his fellow jurors, he makes assumptions about them as people, often based on stereotypes. It's clear that he thinks he's the smartest person in the jury room and maybe even the courtroom. It would be interesting to get feedback from the jurors on their opinions of the author.
There were a few times the author also brought up some ancient philosophers or historians that I (and I'm assuming most folks) never heard of--I'm guessing simply to impress the reader.
I was also disgusted that the author's goal, pretty much from the outset, was to have a hung jury. After a few days of deliberation, the majority were in favor of not guilty. However, there were one or two holdouts. The author was the foreman. As they voted once again by writing on blank cards, he collected the cards. Adele had been one of the holdouts. The author collected her card, and "placed it, consciously and more or less conspicuously, on the bottom of the pile. I wanted the full dismay of the room to land on her if she had voted for a conviction." I was horrified that the author would do sommething like this. He should have shuffled the cards. As it was, all the votes were "not guilty."
The author is a pompous *** who pretty much looks down his nose at everyone involved in the trial--his fellow jurors, the judge, prosecutor, etc. With respect to his fellow jurors, he makes assumptions about them as people, often based on stereotypes. It's clear that he thinks he's the smartest person in the jury room and maybe even the courtroom. It would be interesting to get feedback from the jurors on their opinions of the author.
There were a few times the author also brought up some ancient philosophers or historians that I (and I'm assuming most folks) never heard of--I'm guessing simply to impress the reader.
I was also disgusted that the author's goal, pretty much from the outset, was to have a hung jury. After a few days of deliberation, the majority were in favor of not guilty. However, there were one or two holdouts. The author was the foreman. As they voted once again by writing on blank cards, he collected the cards. Adele had been one of the holdouts. The author collected her card, and "placed it, consciously and more or less conspicuously, on the bottom of the pile. I wanted the full dismay of the room to land on her if she had voted for a conviction." I was horrified that the author would do sommething like this. He should have shuffled the cards. As it was, all the votes were "not guilty."
