How could I possibly know? I didn't view the print version.
I would venture to say that it's a weak "any" Grisham book.
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.
Boredom and several inaccuracies.
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.
No, but in fairness I should say he is not as awful as his predecessors.
Not printed/audio-booked this loser.
Like I said, get your tarnished spoon out ...
Once I hit DELETE in iTunes.
authentic, professionally dictated, fascinating
when the writer himself speaks
no, but will dig for him in the future
Stopped listening to this narrator. He ought to take his gravelly voice and stomp it out in an ashtray.
TEN STARS VERSUS FIVE
The authenticity, the bravery, the no-holding back in erasing a depraved animal.
An author with talent, other than the usual so-so
A narrator whose voice isn't fingernails on a blackboard
Maybe. It was a great book!
I enjoyed Laird's performance very much. Will definitely keep an eye out for his narration in the future.
Joe Barrett is an excellent reader for this genre.
These authors are the FBI's original profilers. Smart, gutsy, creative and determined.
I enjoy the credibility John Douglas brings to the table by narrating his own book.
I remember this incident, so it was nice to learn more of the background story.
The interaction between mother and daughter.
The book could have been cut down quite a bit. So much detail re minor characters, I became frustrated. Didn't finish the book b/c it dragged on and on, but had heard enough and was satisfied when I stopped.
Report Inappropriate Content