Acclaimed author and respected attorney Seymour Wishman takes listeners behind closed jury room doors for an eye-opening exploration of American justice
In autumn 1982, in the affluent New Jersey community of Glen Ridge, a woman is found brutally murdered in her home. The victim's distraught husband points police to a likely perpetrator: an African American handyman with a criminal record. A search of the suspect's home reveals nothing, but still the man is indicted for the crime. His ultimate fate is to be determined by "a jury of his peers" - twelve strangers with no special legal skills or training and a fervent desire to do what is right.
Based on an actual criminal investigation and trial, Seymour Wishman's Anatomy of a Jury carries us from the crime scene to the courthouse to the jury room, providing a fascinating, in depth look into the nation's criminal justice system. Riveting, detailed, and intensely dramatic, Wishman's remarkable book offers provocative insights into how we administer justice, how we judge others, and how others may judge us.
©1986 Seymour Wishman (P)2013 Audible, Inc.
Why ever would I do that?
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.
Report Inappropriate Content