The second electrifying thriller from the "gifted writer" (Publishers Weekly) and author of A Conflict of Interest.
A high-profile attorney in the middle of a leave of absence following a personal tragedy is drawn back into the legal arena amidst a media firestorm when he agrees to represent a popular rap artist accused of brutally murdering his pop star girlfriend. With its powerful voice, pause-resisting tension, and strong cast of characters, Adam Mitzner’s novels are reminiscent of such best-selling authors as Scott Turow and John Grisham.
©2013 Adam Mitzner (P)2013 Audible, Inc.
"Mitzner's courtroom drama is Grisham-like in suspenseful before-the-bench action....a wicked ride, with more loops and flips than Coney Island's Cyclone." (Kirkus Reviews)
"Ah, the crucible of the courtroom! Adam Mitzner understands its appeal so very well. Devotees of legal suspense will find themselves happily at home, zinging with the intrigue, reeling with the twists, and ultimately well fed with a satisfying (if shocking) resolution. And if you've been away from the fictional halls of justice for too long, A CASE OF REDEMPTION is where you need to come back." (Jamie Mason, author of Three Graves Full)
... the term 'pubic hair' was used, he would be rich and never need to write again. Let's hope that was the case as I could not care less about anything else from this author.Completely hokey and transparent. Language is juvenile as are the characters. The only reason I finished it was to prove to myself I had it figured out correctly at the midway point.
The ending. There was so much that didn't make any sense. I think the author was either at a loss on how to end this book or was pressed for time and had to end it because the ending sucked.
The plot did keep my attention. It was an interesting story until the end.
He was good. I just liked him.
Yes, until the end...then I was mad.
I'm not sure if I can recommend this book. I was really upset how it ended. It was like a different person wrote the last few hours.
A huge pop-star is murdered. Her boyfriend, "Legally Dead" or "LD", is arrested because: #1 he's her boyfriend and #2 he wrote a hip-hop song about killing someone with a baseball bat (not specifically her but someone) and that *might* have been how she was murdered (murder weapon couldn’t be found). So the police don’t have to investigate anything or anyone because there’s a rap song, Yay!
With this flimsy evidence, LD, (who despite a huge hit song, lives in the projects and doesn't have a cent to his name) is immediately arrested and held without bail.Yes. The song is all the evidence they need against him. Wouldn’t that be a reason that he DIDN’T kill her? Why would someone write a song about killing someone in a particular way and then kill them the same way? AND, if it plays on the radio non-stop, can’t we assume that it might, perhaps, have given others the same idea unique (sarcasm) idea to kill someone that way? Even if it hadn’t made it to air, isn’t there a producer, a sound mixer, people in the studio – SOMEONE ELSE who may have heard the song and gotten the idea to kill someone that way?
Enter Attorney Dan. Dan has a tragic past, including the deaths of his wife and six year old daughter 18 months earlier. He’s spent 18 months in a drunken stupor. There was so much life insurance that he doesn’t have to work anymore. Of course he’s gorgeous and is talked into handing LD’s case by a gorgeous single lawyer (no spoilers!). Both can work the case pro bono, no problem. But there is no discussion or recognition of the fact that they call in experts for a variety of things – like DNA analysis! - without any mention of cost.
Dan starts working on the case and after getting drunk and blacking out daily for 18 months, he can quit drinking cold turkey without even realizing he has. Several days go by and he realizes “hey, I haven’t had a drink, despite being around alcohol.” Surprise Dan!
Finally, I’m not a lawyer, but I know it’s impossible for a murder to occur several days after Thanksgiving, and an arrest and trial have started 1.5 MONTHS later. Seriously. Talk about the right to a speedy trial. Murder, after Thanksgiving. Media-circus trial mid-January.
This book is amateurish and cliché and I’m really annoyed with myself for even finishing it. I'm flabbergasted by the positive reviews.
The plot starts out quite well and having listened to “A Conflict of Interest” only recently I could easily get into the story or rather its setting. However, the characters remained mostly superficial and it was soon predictable who the bad guys were. As long as the plot was tightly woven with turns and twists this wouldn’t be too bad, however, there was not much unforeseeable twisting and turning here.
Don’t get me wrong: It is still an enjoyable listen, but Mitzner set the bar with “A Conflict of Interest” so high that I am actually disappointed. I’m missing depths and character development in this story, it seems as if the author was in a hurry to produce a sequel to his first hit.
As to the narration: It was no comparison to David LeDoux’s excellent performance in “A Conflict of Interest.” Collins performed rarely in favour of the story but more often he overdid it which made it strenuous to liste to.
I I think housewives might enjoy it. Mitzner spends so much time writing about "Polly pockets" dolls instead of continuing the main story that I had to turn it off. The writing is so basic that I will never listen to anything he writes again
Anger and feeling ripped off
This book sucks. Filled with so many stereotypes. It is not original
First 80% of the book is interesting. Last part is unsatisfactory with contrived and stupid plot twists. Left me feeling cheated with unresolved plot. Don't waste your time on this one.
...occasionally broadens her horizons, but generally just wants to be entertained...
The main character seemed unrealistic to me. Having worked at such a major law firm as a partner and then to act the way he did and used the vocabulary and grammar he did during the story seemed a bit off. Also, I predicted both the solution AND the twist at the end far too soon. I don't know if that's the fault of the narrator or the author, I guess a bit of both.
No, I still like them.
He did the voices well, he was quite flexible that way. But what I didn't like was that he didn't make the main character sound like a grown up lawyer with a tragic history. More like a teenager, which just didn't fit.
It was okay... I listened until the end to see if I was correct in my suspicions regarding the end...
This is a captivating legal story that will hold your interest. Some legal stories sort of lag and get boring, but enjoyed this story 100%. It doesn't over-whelm you with legal nit-pick problems of the court, but stays focused on the main characters.
I found it difficult to stop listening. Enjoyed the book and it's narration.
Definitely anticipating the next turn.
Haven't heard before but enjoyed.
The plot has lots of twists and turns and that makes it exciting. It's a little permissive with inappropriate language, but not intolerable. It is definitely worth listening to and worth paying for.
Excellent performance, I will look to listen to something he performs in again.
Report Inappropriate Content