Adam Hill is 26 years old and in his first year at a top Chicago law firm. He volunteers for the toughest assignment any lawyer could ask for. His prospective client doesn't want Adam or his law firm. He is an unrepentant and outspoken racist with a violent past. He is on Death Row for the murder of two Jewish children in a horrific bombing in 1967.
Why would he take on Adam, a complete novice, to defend him? And why would Adam want his case so desperately? The answer lies in the past, in a 20-year-old secret buried in the madness of another time....
©2007 John Grisham; ©2013 AudioGO Ltd
"Did Grisham really write this??"
This was a good plot and there were many many different scenario possibilities that would have given the story an interesting, tense, worthwhile ending. JG didn't use any of the these and it is a very limp ending.
The most interesting part is the relationship between the lawyer and his grandfather. Sections of the book are predictable and very tedious. I have great difficulty in believing that John Grisham wrote this.
The narration did not add to the book. I think it is the narrators style - didn't seem able to really get into it, didn't show empathy and passion. Was all a bit ho hum.
The characters were all fine but I still don't understand why Grisham didn't use them to their full extent.
I would be reasonably sure that any Grisham fans who read and love the earlier material (the Testament, Rainmaker, Pelican brief, The Firm, etc) and some of the later ones like the racketeers will be pretty disappointed with this. It is like Grisham had a great novel going with lots of 'irons in the fire' and then suddenly he just gives up and attaches a very mediocre ending.