Gerry Spence

This book is an enjoyable read written by a lawyer who, according to Wikipedia, has never lost a criminal case as either a prosecutor or defender, and hasn't lost a civil case in 46 years. This was written in 1996, a couple years after I first heard of Spence when he skillfully defended Randy Weaver and exposed major problems in the federal government's actions in the Ruby Ridge case. Spence has defended Imelda Marcos and a host of others.

The negative reviews of this book seem to be by show more people who wanted a quick silver bullet, which is not what Spence provides. "Winning" has to be defined, as does "argument." Spence states that not every argument can be one, there is no need for a suicide charge. A "tactical retreat" is often a smart maneuver in winning a larger war.

The first part of the book reminded me of Plato, it reads like Socrates' dialectic. Spence (an ardent environmentalist) has an imaginary dialogue with a lumberjack, showing that if you can empower someone ("would you serve on a committee looking at this issue?") in their compromise, you win the argument. Argument is necessary. It's an important part of identity and personal growth. "Every boss should have a sign on his desk saying 'Argue with me,'" he writes. Spence proposes a new paradigm of argument: Argument is a means by which we bring about change, either in ourselves or others. It is a way to achieve an outcome you desire. What do you want to change?

"You are your own authority," and submitting to an external authority will stunt your growth. Both parties to an argument retain their authority, which makes "winning" somewhat problematic to define. You are simply changing someone without changing their authority, or accepting someone else's argument without relinquishing your own authority.

"All power, yours and theirs, is yours." Our power is creativity, joy, pain, experiences, belonging only to us. "Their power is my perception of their power." Others possess only what we give them. These philosophical/psychological points underpin his argument in the book. (These thoughts on not submitting to outside authorities will be problematic to those who look at an outside source-- like the Bible-- as their authority. Spence does not address absolutes in the book).

We should not live life skeptical of every little thing, but we should be skeptical. We want to trust the salesman, reporter, etc., but we need to listen and think. We also need to be aware of our own prejudices and cognitive biases, as well as the person you're arguing with. "I've learned more from my dogs" than any of the so-called "experts from on high."

Spence writes that you should always tell the truth. An admission on your part scores points with a jury while an exposure of yourself by your opponent undermines your case. Better to confess than be exposed and accused of hiding something.

Tell a complete story. Use pictures in your words. Do not appeal to the jury's intellect, but rather their emotions. Use simple language that paints vivid pictures. (He gives a wonderful example of how he did this in front of an audience hostile to his environmentalism, converting some to his side.) Practice putting emotion into your words. Think of certain situations where you have felt emotion X. Now pick a word you associate with that emotional situation. Say that word with the emotion you associate with that experience. Practice it in your car, the shower, etc. Practice growling, practice showing joy. Spence comes across like an old-time stump speaker or carnival barker; it's obviously effective. Make the "magical argument." "I know this man is innocent and I want badly to show you how I know..."

It is better to convince one person in your audience who will make a lasting change than your entire audience and they forget what you said by morning. "Winning" is the conversion of that one rather than the majority.

Spence concludes the book with great thoughts in regards to communication in marriage. If you want love or respect, you need to communicate love and respect. If you want a major life change, explain to your wife the entire story, what happens first, next, and what the end picture is ("... and we live happily ever after"). Spence regrets misspent years as a parent who saw his children as pupils rather than as independent individuals. He learned from his wife that it's better to show your children respect. If you want your children to respect you, show respect to them by giving them freedom to learn and fail, give them responsibilities, show them trust and watch them earn more. If you want to win the argument with your 16 year old, you have to star when he's 6. If you love unconditionally, people are more willing to listen to your argument-- the argument can be won without words.

The same principles apply at work. If you want respect from your boss, you must always demonstrate that you respect her. If asking for a raise, frame it in terms of the benefit to the company. "With a raise (tuition reimbursement, etc.), I will be able to devote less time to my outside activities, boost company productivity, increase profit, etc." Spence writes that corporations are amoral entities "No one has ever seen a corporation." The corporation exists to make certain people profit, so you win arguments with a corporation only by framing it in the interest of the shareholders.

I found this to be a highly entertaining and personally helpful read. I recommend it. 4 stars out of 5. show less

Court of Lies by Gerry Spence

In 1954 Jackson Hole, Wyoming we meet Judge Murray talking about his life and as the story progresses we meet the man who will become his law partner, the woman who will become his wife, a man that will be a thorn in his flesh for decades and a woman that is as close to him as a daughter. aa story is narrated by a true storyteller but one that is not in a hurry to share the tale. I had moments when I questioned if it would be worth the time to read this book but show more have to say that it definitely was.

My emotions were definitely involved as I read about abuse, misuses of power, lies, hate, bigotry and more. I was warmed by the love and friendship and caring of some for others. I felt anger more than once and wanted to reach in and smack some of the characters. I guess the main thing I felt at the end of the book is that the law is not always all that it could and should be but that people can be good even when they sometimes choose not to stay within the law’s boundaries.

This is a book that will stay with me for awhile and one that I will ponder. I can relate to the older characters in the book and how they are looking at the world in a way that I perhaps might not have been able to a couple of decades ago.

Did I enjoy this book? Yes
Would I read another book by this author? Yes

Thank you to NetGalley and MacMillan Tor-Forge for the ARC – This is my honest review.

4-5 Stars show less

Beautiful Lillian Adams is going on trial for the murder of her wealthy husband before Judge John Murray. The prosecutor, Haskins Sewell, however, is consumed by political ambition. He plans to advance his own career by framing Lillian for murder one and by railroading the judge into prison. A fast-paced, up-all-night courtroom thriller, Court of Lies is also a harsh indictment of today's legal system.

This story had a lot going on in the courtroom with good questions, contentious objections show more and other lawyer strategies. I didn’t strongly like any of the characters but I did grow to hate the prosecutor. The prosecutor was presented as purposely lying and making false accusations to win his case. The author is a successful defense lawyer and I think this may be his view of many prosecutors he encountered over the years. The characters were a bit over the top and not always believable. Still, the story was entertaining. show less

Blood on the Table by Gerry Spence

Compelling critical look at situations that were often difficult to unsee. The law is supposed to be blind and see innocence rather than prejudge or indict without facts. It is supposed to be honest and just but that is not always true. This story made me think and care and wonder and wish…and in the end it left me with a bit of hope.

What I liked:
* Ringo: honest, loving, kind, artistic, giving, good son, admirable, stalwart, a good man, someone I would show more like as a friend/on my side.
* Ben: father, husband, shepherd, father, honest, a good man, taciturn, quiet, bottled up emotionally, falsely accused, intriguing in the way still waters sometimes run deep.
* Sarah: mother, wife, secret keeper, lonely, would do anything for her family, hard worker, conflicted, dreamer, enjoys beauty, dreamer, made me think about what I would have done in her situation
* Hampton: lawyer, husband, truth seeker, honest, intelligent, interesting in the courtroom
* Meg/Isabelle: college student, artist, pragmatic, traveled, deeper than expected
* Ham & Jamey: two boys that deserved so much better
* The way all the pieces came together eventually…though I wondered at times if they would.
* Kind of liked the ultimate outcome and decision of the jury…though had hoped for something else
* That the story made me think and care
* The 1940’s era
* The location in Wyoming
* Mrs. Foley – the foster mother
* That though I thought about giving up in the beginning as it seemed slow…I was once again drawn in and could not put the book down.

What I didn’t like:
* Those I was meant not to like…and they were many. It was easy to hate them and hard to see the shenanigans they got up to.
* The way some were willing to use their power negatively and too often got away with it
* The damage done to so many

Did I enjoy this book? Yes
Would I read more by this author? Yes

Thank you to NetGalley and Macmillan-Tor/Forge for the ARC – This is my honest review.

5 Stars show less