<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Potential lost
Review: Excellant choice of trials, but writers extreme political bias reflected in description of trials and did not provide a clear view.
Rating:
Summary: So many pages for so little to read.
Review: I am a strong admirer of Alan Dershowitz. I especially enjoyed his books The Genesis of Justice, and Reasonable Doubts (O.J. Simpson case). Unlike those books, America on Trial tries to do way too much. It is more like his Contrary to Popular Opinion book, where he presents many of his earlier published commentaries on the law.
Unfortunately, I found the writings in the current book to lack the cohesiveness and well considered analysis found in the earlier book. Granted, this is not true for every case that he presents. However, he includes far to many cases for which he simply wants to inject a personal opinion. In so doing, he misses opportunities for more developed theories of particular cases. Frankly, many of his comments on some of these cases could have been presented in a paragraph.
I understand that he is trying to explain various aspects of American law by using an assortment of cases. But, his points become obscure and sometimes repetitive by having too many cases in a format that reminds me of Reader's Digest, or U.S.A. Today.
In sum, there is not enough in this book to be useful for serious students of law or history, and too many cases for the casual reader. I hope that this is not a sign of the dummying down of Dershowtiz.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent - Recommend Buying
Review: I had a expected a bit better book but this book is still excellent. If someone else had written the book I might be less ambivalent but it is written by Alan Dershowitz, long time Harvard Law Professor, well known appeals lawyer, media commentator, author of 20 previous books, at least one of which I know was made into a movie, and perhaps one of the most talented living lawyers - so I expected a better book. To give some perspective I recently read the book on Stalin by Montefiore and he must have really toiled to write that book. This book in comparison seems like somewhat less of an effort - see below. Still it ranks 4 or 5 stars and is a great buy.When I discovered the book at my book store I was ecstatic and bought it immediately. I started to read it as soon as I got home. The first chapter is beautiful. He explains how the early trials of Socrates, and Jesus, and Galileo, and Thomas More, and Mary Queen of Scots, the trial of Louis XVI all have contributed to our legal thinking and how these helped form what became of the current legal system. He quotes from the bible: Adam and Eve, Susanna, Jacob, etc. He references the Federalist Papers, Greek trials, the Romans, etc. After that chapter I thought this was going to be a legal "tour de force" but it is not. After page 25 and "The Foundations of American Law" we find a compilation of cases - a series of short stories on famous trials - each a few pages long starting with the Salem Witchcraft Trials in 1692 (8 pages long) going through approximately 60 trials in total. We learn the names, the trial date, location, defendants, charge, verdict, and the sentence of each trial. These are grouped into sections with an introduction for each section. Each section has its own notes and the book is almost 600 pages long. The author adds many comments on each case and explains how the trials support basic freedoms and rights, and commenting on how the laws have evolved ( I suppose that is what another reviewer refers to as political bias) and quotes from people such as Justice Brandeis etc. All the information is interesting and informative and clearly indicates how are laws have evolved; there is a difference between the laws and justice; sometimes laws evolve through the action of juries and bright lawyers and against the wishes of conservative judges and meddling politicians. He does a nice job with Susan B. Anthony and Andrew Johnson's impeachment, and Alger Hiss, and Roe vs Wade and many more. The conspiracy charges against Dr. Spock were chilling to say the least and are almost unimaginable. He goes from Salem to Guantanamo and it all seems well balanced except for the O.J. case where he is not objective, but that was not an important legal trial from a viewpoint of forming or changing laws. It is mostly a wonderful summary of trials and their results but it is not perhaps Dershowitz's "tour de force" culmination of 20 books. Still the trial comments and the end results are good. I did spot one small error. Hinckley fired at Reagan after he gave his speech to the AFL-CIO and as Reagan went from the Hilton to his limousine, not as the book states that he was entering to give a speech where the author was also speaking (see for example page 428 of "Dutch" by Edmund Morris). A bit disappointing in some ways but still a good buy, and one of his better books. Clearly an innovative book and a compelling read. Jack in Toronto
Rating:
Summary: Generally Excellent
Review: I had a expected a bit better book, but this book is still excellent and is highly recommended. I learned quite a bit about some famous cases by reading this book.
If someone else had written the book I might be less ambivalent but it is written by Alan Dershowitz, long time Harvard Law Professor, well known appeals lawyer, media commentator, author of 20 previous books, at least one of which I know was made into a movie, and perhaps one of the most talented living lawyers - I expected a better book. Still it ranks 5 stars and is a great buy and is full of information.
When I discovered the book at my book store I bought it immediately and started to read it as soon as I got home. The first chapter is excellent. In an informal lecture format he explains how the early trials of Socrates, Jesus, Galileo, Thomas More, Mary Queen of Scots, and the trial of Louis XVI all have contributed to our legal thinking. He explains how these have helped form the current legal system. He quotes from the bible: Adam and Eve, Susanna, Jacob, etc. He references the Federalist Papers, Greek trials, the Romans, etc. It is impressive!
After that chapter I thought this was going to be a legal "tour de force" but it is not. After page 25 and "The Foundations of American Law" we find a compilation of US cases - a series of short stories on famous trials - each a few pages long starting with the Salem Witchcraft Trials in 1692 (8 pages long) going through approximately 64 trials in total. We learn the names, the trial date, location, defendants, charge, verdict, and the sentence of each trial.
These trials are grouped into sections with an introduction for each section. Each section has its own notes and the book is almost 600 pages long. The author adds many comments on each case and explains how the trials support basic freedoms and rights, and commenting on how the laws have evolved ( I suppose that is what another reviewer refers to as political bias) and quotes from people such as Justice Brandeis who he admires. Probably the book would have been better with 25% fewer trials and more explanations but that is a personal opinion. The reader can judge, and some will like the 64 cases.
All the information is interesting and informative and clearly indicates how our laws have evolved; there is a difference between the laws and justice; sometimes laws evolve through the action of juries and bright lawyers and against the wishes of conservative judges and meddling politicians. He does a nice job with Susan B. Anthony and Andrew Johnson's impeachment, and Alger Hiss, and Roe vs Wade and many more. One can see the evolution of the law.
The conspiracy charges against Dr. Spock were chilling to say the least and are almost unimaginable. He goes from Salem to Guantanamo and it all seems well balanced except for the O.J. case and maybe Tyson where he is not as objective, but they were not important legal trials from a viewpoint of forming or changing laws. It is mostly a wonderful summary of trials and their results but it is not perhaps Dershowitz's "tour de force" culmination of 20 books. Still the trial comments and the end results are good.
I did spot one small error. Hinckley fired at Reagan after he gave his speech to the AFL-CIO and as Reagan went from the Hilton to his limousine, not as the book states that he was entering to give a speech where the author was also speaking (see for example page 428 of "Dutch" by Edmund Morris). That sounds minor but an argument for Hinckley's sanity was that he waited for a clear shot.
A bit disappointing in some ways but still a good buy, and one of his better books. Clearly an innovative book and a compelling read.
Jack in Toronto
Rating: 
Summary: American history through the prism of famous law cases
Review: If you expect a very deep analysis of the famous trials and legal issues that are so typical for other Alan Dershowitz books you will not find it here. For the simple reason that there are just too many trials the author tries to cover. The value of this book for me that it shows the dynamic of development of the legal system in the US. It shows how history influenced certain legal decision and vice versa. If you approach this book with this kind of expectations you, probably, will not be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: Justice, Injustice, Legal Shenanigans and Lying Lawyers
Review: Professor Dershowitz claims that he has read the original trial transcripts of more criminal cases than anyone else. That's entirely possible because most legal scholars focus on appellate opinions that set new case law. What he found will shake your view of how well the American justice system has been working. But it's well worth having the feet pulled out from under your assumptions that all is well in the legal world. Only in that way can we hope to make needed improvements.
The book is formatted to select a few cases from each period in American history in order to capture the social and legal issues of the day. Each section is preceded by a brief essay summarizing the cases and then followed by mini-essays on some of the cases mentioned in the brief essay. The best of these materials correct popular misconceptions about famous trials, lawyers and judges.
The cases from the last three decades are probably a little too extensive, but because Mr. Dershowitz played a role in many of them, I think he can be forgiven for including so many.
If you are a person who believes that the U.S. Constitution cannot be changed in meaning except by an amendment, you will probably hate this book. Mr. Dershowitz believes that laws need to evolve to match the times and to correct historic wrongs . . . such as slaves being counted as a 3/5 person for purposes of the House of Representatives in the original version of the Constitution, even though the slaves had no right to vote.
If you are a big fan of Justice Scalia, you will definitely hate the book's end where Mr. Dershowitz unloads on the justice in no uncertain terms.
I was glad that I had read the book because I, too, had some misconceptions that I needed to lose. But the gain was modest for the effort. So if you are a lawyer, you might just want to skim the cases that interest you rather than read the whole book.
For someone who isn't a lawyer, I think the book will be very revealing in its exploration of how justice and injustice have been perpetrated in the courts over the last several hundred years in the United States. I think you'll come away pleased that we are trying to make justice better. You will also be disappointed to see that the child molestation cases were sometimes run in ways not different enough from the Salem witch trials. Progress can be slow.
Most books about the grand cases of the law elevate the law and the legal profession with a lot of romanticism. Professor Dershowitz uses bug spray instead to make the cockroaches scatter who are undermining the process. When you agree with his views, you will love the book. When you disagree with his views, you will find the book to be very annoying.
I graded the book down for enormous redundancy between the brief essays and the mini-essays. That problem was less towards the end, but it was a definite annoyance in the beginning.
May we all enjoy the justice we deserve!
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining not Educational
Review: This book was compiled with the assistance of many people (p.xi), and makes for interesting reading of these sixty plus cases. You will be educated in reading this book, but do not assume these stories to be complete and accurate. They are the equivalent of a TV show, meant to be entertaining.
The Boorn Case gets a fuller discussion in Edmund Pearson's "Studies in Murder", who does not discuss the story of a "conspiracy". It defies common sense for a poor farmer in Vermont to have access to a man in New Jersey! The main point is there was no proof of any murder, or that the bones belonged to Russell Colvin. The hanging of a Harvard Professor was based solely on circumstantial evidence, a first in America. The Judge's instructions were in favor of the prosecution (pp.105-6). His story about Lizzie Borden is in error. Edmund Pearson's book was shown in error by Edward Radin's 1961 book, and his in turn. There were no bloodstains on Lizzie or Bridget, and no murder weapon found. Neither were a likely suspect, except they alone were present. David Kent's "Forty Whacks" gives a better treatment of this unsolved murder puzzle. The Judges' instructions correctly favored the defendant. Any story about the "Black Sox" and Shoeless Joe Jackson should refer to Eliot Asinof's 1963 book "Eight Men Out" which covers this story better.
The Alger Hiss trial divided America, "but not along class or party lines". Hiss was convicted of perjury in saying he did not recognize Whittaker Chambers. But a picture taken around 1935 shows Chambers (under his false name) to be around 145 pounds, sandy haired, and with a mustache. Compared to the 1948 Chambers, 300 lbs gray and bald, they do look like two different men. See for yourself. Chambers claimed these papers were a "life preserver", but were worth little without his corroboration. And Hiss, unlike real Soviet spies, never left America after his release. There are problems with the evidence (p.316).
The book "Tainting Evidence" has a chapter on the evidentiary problems in the Jeffrey MacDonald case. This is mentioned on pages 435-6. There is no evidence of any payoff to get MacDonald convicted. One of the most publicized and yet unknown case is the OJ Trial. The limousine driver picked him up at 11pm and drove him to the airport. OJ could not have personally murdered his ex-wife and the visiting waiter. The Medical Examiner who did the autopsies testified that the forensic evidence said they were murdered after 11pm. [The red, liquid blood suggests murder after 11:30pm, just before the bodies were found.] These facts trump manufactured evidence like the planted glove and fabricated blood evidence. In June 1996 the Los Angeles Times reported that the lead detective took away blood samples of the victims before the evidence was turned in for DNA testing. O.J. Simpson escaped the fate of Dr. Sam Shepard (or Tom Mooney). Isn't it true that murders by organized crime are rarely solved by the police?
Rating:
Summary: The verdict is in - this book is wonderful
Review: Who isn't facinated by some of the most spectacular trials we have seen unfold in our newspapers and on television. America On Trial takes the reader on a historical trip through the most significant trials of the past few centuries. The insight of Professor Dershowitz illustrates how America, and indeed Americans, have been shaped by the decision of judges, justices, juries and popular opinion. The evolution of our society is presented in a thoughtful and compelling way by one of the most reknowned and respected lawyers, a professor of great distinction and a captivating storyteller. America On Trial is a must read for anyone who is interested in how and why we have become the country and people we are today.
<< 1 >>
|
