Reversible Errors

I pretty much loved this book, and I'm not even really sure if I can explain why. I'm so tired of legal thrillers--after awhile, they all seem the same. Same critiques of the legal system, same characters, etc. But I gave this book a try because I ready Scott Turow's One L (when I was a 1L) and it was so spot on and terrifying so I wanted to read Turow's fiction. And this book is so different from the usual legal thriller. The characters are complex; none of the characters (except for maybe Arthur) is truly good or truly evil. They all have their own motivations and their own complexities. Character development is so key to a good book and Turow nailed it in this one. Add to that a great whodunit and I couldn't put this book down. The show more only complaint I did have was what he did at the end-it almost felt like he was saying it was worse to be a heroin addict than an alcoholic. Maybe I'm a little sensitive to the issue, but addiction is addiction and is horrible in all its forms. I didn't understand the distinction between the horribleness of a judge presiding over a trial drunk vs. doped up. Regardless, I would definitely recommend this one and will definitely read another Turow. show less

This is a well written mystery published in 2002 by an expert observer of the criminal justice system. The author spent several years of his professional career as a prosecuting state’s attorney in Chicago, and then became a lawyer at a Chicago law firm. Turow has valuable insights into the trial process, and describes legal procedures in an understandable way for nonprofessionals.

Turow’s fictional Kindle County and Center City bear a strong resemblance to Cook County and Chicago, Illinois. This makes it more fun to read if you are from that area, because there are many references to places a native Chicagoan would recognize.

The story is told through the eyes of four main characters. Arthur Raven, a partner at a large, prosperous show more law firm, is enlisted by a federal appellate court to represent a black man scheduled to be executed in 33 days for a heinous murder of three people in a popular Greek restaurant near DuSable Field (read “Midway Airport”). The suspect's guilt comes into question when another inmate makes a deathbed confession to the crimes. The lawyer, the (female) judge who tries the case, the chief detective who obtained a confession from the suspect, and the young (female) prosecutor who was involved in the original trial all interact in interesting and carnal ways. Incidentally, the sex scenes, which involve only middle-aged lawyers and a middle-aged, overweight detective, are sensitive and well wrought.

The reader learns of the “facts” of the case not through the usual investigations of the police or a private eye (that information was all collected a decade before the appeal), but through the legal process known as (post trial) discovery. [It is unusual to allow much post trial discovery, but this is a capital case. Even more unusual is for depositions taken a decade after the crime to elicit important information, but it is all plausible in this narration.] Turow’s knowledge of criminal procedure comes in handy here.

I found myself racing to find out if the final habeas corpus action would be successful. [A writ of habeas corpus challenges the legality of imprisonment.] The plot includes several guest appearances of a black civil rights leader. He disrupts the normal appellate procedure and ruins the opportunity of the white appellate lawyer to make a financial killing on the inevitable civil damages action. But the conclusion of the book is not so much about the fate of the accused, whose guilt is put in doubt, but never resolved. The ultimate denouement is the closure of the relationships among the narrators—cop, judge, trial prosecutor, and appellate counsel. I won’t give that away.

Evaluation: The plot is more complicated than my summary suggests—you’ll enjoy the twists. The prison scenes are artfully crafted and (I can’t speak from personal experience) seemingly realistic. I liked this book very much, but since the last two fiction books I reviewed were Moby Dick and The Road, I can’t give it the highest possible grade. Instead, a well-earned 4 stars out of 5. show less

9/10
This is the story of a murder investigation, both when the murders happened and 10 years later when the man who was convicted is on death row and someone else has now confessed to the crime. Against that legal backdrop are the personal dramas of love, ambition, lies, and second chances. Both aspects of the book are compelling, with plenty of surprises along the way.

It can be depressing to spend much time in the hard, all-consuming life of police, prosecutors, and politicians, and defense lawyers, and the inexact legal system where truth runs out the door as it is trimmed for presentation in court. One feels for the poor schmucks with bad luck who get caught in all the messy sewerage of criminality and drown in it because they haven't got the advocacy that cleverer, richer schmucks often buy.

Pretty good story, pretty good writing, pretty good characters, and another window for those of us, peeping toms with a morbid fascination with the dark side, and a penchant for personal redemption even when it falls short of a completely happy ending. Strong characters with parallel love stories, and the show more police/legal system complicating their lives. show less

Whilst this is deemed a legal thriller on the cover, I rather felt the slow and methodical manner in which things initially unfolded made it more of a legal or crime procedural, maybe a suspense novel.

However once the plot moved firmly into the time period in which it was set (2001) the story did become a bit more thrilling, and you became more invested in seeing how the courtroom maneuvering would unfold in terms of revealing the truth.

I can't say that I at all found the prosecutor and lead detective in the story were at all ethical, and I feel it quite saddening that their are such people out there who would rather tear someone else down than admit their own shortcomings or errors.

As such, I wasn't particularly enthused with the way show more the story came to resolve the plot, I would have preferred for them to tangle it out all the way to the end in the courtroom, yet I can see the way it did unfold conveyed a particular message.

Overall, it was a good legal story, not quite as thrilling and captivating as Grisham's works yet perhaps more thought provoking. show less

I read Scott Turow's Presumed Innocent which I liked, and its sequel, with which I was less enthralled. Then I got lawyered out by all the lawyer/crime/mystery books that proliferated like bunnies. This book was one my mother had looked forward to reading and purchased to read. I don't know if she ever did, but there were several clippings tucked carefully inside the book, which I have affixed to the back cover.

The plot revolves around the approaching death of a man convicted of a triple murder. But did he really do it or not? He's on death row as the book opens, next up for execution.

The actual story, they lawyer and investigation bits were par for the course. What made this book, for me, were the characters, particularly Arthur, show more Gillian and Susan. Those were of enough depth and interest to keep me going, not the "he's guilty/he's not guilty/oh maybe he's really guilty/maybe not" arc of the story.

I'll pass this on via BookCrossing or perhaps see if a friend would like it for the Ruthe/bumma connection. show less

A detective and prosecutor put a man on death row for a multiple murder; years later, a defense attorney and the judge who originally sentenced the accused try one last time to exonerate him as his execution nears. Turow knows the moral issues surrounding capital punishment and really delves into his characters. A powerful book.