Justice in the Age of Judgment

From Amanda Knox to Kyle Rittenhouse and the Battle for Due Process in the Digital Age

De: Anne Bremner, Doug Bremner

Narrado por: Janet Metzger

Duración: 8 h y 38 m

Resumen del Editor

When unscrupulous Italian prosecutors waged an all-out war in the media and courtroom to wrongly convict American exchange student Amanda Knox for a murder she didn’t commit, family and friends turned to Seattle attorney and media legal analyst Anne Bremner to help win her freedom. The case was dubbed the “trial of the decade” and would coincide with the explosion of social media and a new era of trying cases in public as much as the courtroom. While Italian prosecutors, the press, and online lynch mobs convicted Knox in the court of public opinion, Bremner would draw upon her decades in the courtroom and in front of the camera to turn the tide with a new kind of defense in pursuit of justice.

Bremner takes us inside some of the biggest cases of recent times and offers her expert insights and analysis as our legal system faces unprecedented forces fighting to tip the scales of justice their way. Why couldn’t prosecutors convict O.J. Simpson despite all of the evidence seemingly proving he killed his wife Nicole? Could a jury remain unbiased in the face of overwhelming public pressure in the trial of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd? Justice in the Age of Judgement is Bremner’s unparalleled and unflinching look at the captivating cases tried on Twitter and TV, where the burden of proof and fundamental legal tenet of “innocent until proven guilty” is under assault from the court of public opinion.

©2022 Anne Bremner and Doug Bremner (P)2022 Dreamscape Media, LLC

read it but know that she's a little biased on recent American cases

this seems pretty good at first but then you start seeing a little biases coming through. she calls people right wing extremist when they are just conservatives. president Trump isn't mentioned more than a handful of times but she always just gives one sentence and doesn't explain the context in which he was speaking. when she brings up George Floyd she makes it sound like he's an innocent choir boy who was attacked by these police. she doesn't mention that he was incredibly high and saying that he couldn't breathe when he was alone in the police car. she doesn't mention the toxicology reports or the fact that the first autopsy said that it was not homicide. I literally skipped to the next chapter because it was so obnoxious to leave out any information that doesn't confirm what you want to be true. rioting is very downplayed. she keeps using the term protest and doesmention that it gets violent at night but she makes it sound like it's not a lot of people and it's just like a sentence or two. like somehow it wasn't a big deal. when she talks about Kyle Rittenhouse she does give credit at the end that it was the correct verdict. but she doesn't do a wonderful job of describing what happened. maybe she should tell everybody to just watch the trial. someone's not alt right or antifa or an extremist because they believe in the rule of law and the Bill of rights. also I was a little irritated at the end when she basically said that Catholics are crazy. she brought up the weirdo prosecutor from Amanda Knox case and said that he was basically nuts and creepy because of his Catholic beliefs. I'm Catholic and I didn't agree with anything that that guy said or did. he was just a total wacko, no need to drag 52% of the world's Christians into it. and the end is her just listing over and over again all the accomplishments she has done in her life. the first maybe 2/3 is interesting. I learned a lot about Amanda Knox case. I'd say go for it and listen to it but just know that she has a slight liberal bias that comes through when talking about recent American cases

Story of Social Media Effects on Our Legal System

Thank you both for your thoughtful narrative and analysis of the evolution of effects of social media on our legal system. This book demonstrates the power of story telling to educate and inform. Many of us have a tendency to make snap judgements based upon limited information and emotional response more upon our own background and experience than facts. My hope is that this book is not banned in restrictive states. Or perhaps that might actually inspire more people to read and question the basis of our beliefs. My personal reaction to Kyle Rittenhouse was that he was guilty of a crime. Your legal analysis changed my mind. From a technical aspect perhaps Mr. Rittenhouse was not guilty of violating state statutes. He was, however, engaging in high risk behavior that threatened his own life and cost the life of another. I am curious to learn how a change in the laws might protect us from a similar future event. My hope is that you both are mentoring the next generation of attorneys, physicians, scientists, and writers. A compelling story worthy of a second listen.

Outstanding! A must read in this digital age.

Engaging and educational. I found the authors insights concerning how we try cases in the media many times before they are ever tried in a court of law illuminating and instructional. Each chapter became more and more captivating. I had a hard time finding time for anything other than listening. The cases she covers you will no doubt recall. You do not have to enjoy stories about crime to find this book enthralling, informative and edifying.
Highly recommended in in our digital age.

Interesting

I also just finished “Spare” by Prince Harry, which gives a narrated view of the power of the press, to do evil