Customer Reviews

America on Trial: Inside the Legal Battles That Transformed Our Nation--From the Salem Witches to the Guantanamo Detainees

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

America On Trial - Inside The Legal Battles That Transformed Our Nation
by Alan M. Dershowitz (Warner Books).
© Marc Wickert October 1, 2008
www.knucklepit.com

This book is literary shock treatment. Although written by the world's most famous criminal lawyer, the book is easy to read, but hard to put down.

Professor Dershowitz has defended such clients as Patty Hearst, Jimmy Bakker, and former heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson. Dershowitz was also a member of O.J. Simpson's `Dream Team' defense group.

In his book, he covers cases from the Salem Witchcraft Trials of Colonial America to the Trial of the Lincoln Assassins; from the Shoeless Joe Jackson Case to the Trial of Jack Ruby; and the Trial of the Chicago Seven to the Cases of the Terrorist Detainees - in Guantanamo and unknown places around the world.

If you ever wondered whether Mike Tyson was really guilty of rape, or thought it strange a beauty pageant contestant was innocently visiting the boxer in his hotel room at 2am, then wait until you've read Professor Dershowitz's chapter "The Trial of Mike Tyson".

"America On Trial - Inside The Legal Battles That Transformed Our Nation" is a knockout book from cover to cover. This book should be in every library on the planet.

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.

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!

When I first saw this book, based on the title I dismissed it as an anti-government screed. Fortunately, I picked it up and looked at it more closely. I concluded that the title was misleading, probably chosen by the publisher to enhance sales. In this regard, it failed with me as I bought it in spite of the title not because of it. A much better, more descriptive, title would have been Great Trials of America. While not an anti-government screed, Professor Dershowitz comes down hard on the more conservative members of the current (as of 2004) Supreme Court. As such, the book may not appeal to those who support the conservative view of how to interpret the constitution. Professor Dershowitz also focuses on prosecutorial, defense counsel and judicial misconduct. Some may support this misconduct as an attempt to bring about the desired outcome (the readers desired outcome), even at the expense of staying within the rules of the court and in some cases the rule of law. While coming down most often against the conservatives who twist (or even break) the law, he does not spare those on the left who did the same thing (particularly Clarence Darrow). I found the discussion of the Scopes trial to be most interesting. Professor Dershowitz points out that much of our view of the trial is based on the play (and later the movie) Inherit the Wind, in which the Bryant character is made out to be somewhat of a fool. In reality, Professor Dershowitz points out that Bryant actually won the case and was not the narrow minded religious conservative depicted in the play and movie. He points out that the book that Bryant was trying to ban (successfully) was a eugenics text, more suited to Nazi Germany than the US.

The book covers important trials starting with the Salem Witch trials and that of Peter Zenger, and ends with the detainees at Guantanamo bay (although as of 2004 when the book was written there has yet to be a trial). This is done by dividing the book into sections, each covering a period of American history (Colonial America, Early History, Civil War, Early Twentieth Century, etc.), with a brief discussion of the trials of that period at the beginning of each section. There are common threads, such as the question of Supreme Court decisions based on a strict interpretation of the constitution versus a looser one allowing for change with the times. The question of freedom of speech is another thread that runs through the book.

I liked the early sections much better than those that dealt with cases that Professor Dershowitz was personally involved. Perhaps this was due to the fact that I was somewhat acquainted with these trials, so I learned less than I did from the early trials with which I had much less knowledge. My chief criticism is that the aim was to cover as many trials as possible (I counted 63), so no trail was covered in very much detail. Rather, the focus was on what the trial tells us about the American judicial system and its legacy. I would have liked to see more about each trail, even if fewer trails were covered.

As a trial attorney, one of my guilty pleasures is to periodically pick up the works of other trial attorneys to learn what cases in their opinion define American justice.

In this regard, I must candidly admit that I have so far failed to find a good book on this topic.

However, even if I were to imagine myself a lay reader, I still think I'd find this book enthralling.

To be sure, it doesn't pursue the cases it studies in an exhaustive way but it still hits the major high notes and along the way manages to impart a greater sense of the forrest level view than the tree level view of American justice.

And as a forrest level view, I think it functions pretty well in its coverage of the various eras of American justice including:

The colonial era. Here Dershowitz includes the Salem witch trials as well as the cases of John Peter Zenger and the Boston Massacre. Though Dershowitz for the most part has little new insight to offer on these cases, it is nonetheless interesting to hear his views of the litigation strategies used at the Zenger and Boston Massacre trials.

The era constitutional era through the civil war. Here Dershowitz touches on the predictable cases like Dred Scott and John Brown but also provides interesting insights on less popularized cases that were still representative of the period.

Post civil war through the Wilson administration. Here Dershowitz tells the exciting story of how the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment basically became dead letters along with the rights of the average working man.

The story of Clarence Darrow. Here we find a petulant Dershowitz. As the cover material to this book asks, did Darrow resort to jury tampering? Relying on modern historical research that answers this question in the affirmative, Dershowitz proceeds to dig out what he views as being Darrow's feet of clay. In this area, along with his treatment of many other big name attorneys, it was easy for me to see a more petulant Dershowitz, a sort of legal Nora Desmond bemoaning the successes of others perhaps more of fear that their light may outshine his diminishing flicker.

Post Darrow through Vietnam. Here we see Dershowitz again touching on the major cases. He pours cold water on Darrow in terms of his handling of the Scopes Monkey trial and then proceeds to discuss the Lindbergh kidnapping as well as the wrongful (and shameful) detention of Japanese Americans during World War II. We see an almost embarassed Dershowitz as he recounts the juvenile tactics employed by the defense in the Dr. Spock draft dodging case.

The Dershowitz era. Though he was a law clerk in the 60s, Dershowitz' personal career as a lawyer didn't begin until he started private practice. And it's perhaps here where this book shines best as Dershowitz recounts his personal involvement in the Claus von Bulow defense, the Mike Tyson defense and of course the defense of O.J. Simpson. On that last particular, Dershowitz wisely avoids the protestations he made earlier in the book about the substantive innocence of other clients.

As observed by Alexis de Tocqueville, there is no issue in American life that does not sooner or later resolve itself into some type of courtroom dispute. By focusing on the courtroom disputes, Dershowitz gives a uniquely illuminating view of both American trials and that society that begat them.

This book is highly recommended reading.

Who else but Alan Dershowitz could deftly put in context America's greatest landmark trials and legal controversies that shape the nation in a thorough and succinct Prologue on the foundations of American Law?

It is almost like a refresher course in history and philosophy, the foundation of all knowledge, hence we are given a quick rundown on the "..stories of the Bible, with the accounts of famous Greek trials such as that of Socrates, with the infamous Continental Inquisitions against Joan of Arc and Galileo, with the British prosecution of Thomas More, and with the notorious regicide and treason trials of Europe.." and the American legal system which is "..based on a written Constitution, judicial review and most important, the separation of church and state."

He argues that trials can tell us a great deal about the passions, conflicts and attitudes of the time and "America on Trial" represents the episodic history of the nation "..viewed through the prism of our most dramatic and influential public court proceedings."

Dershowitz, the renowned civil liberties lawyer and Harvard Law professor who is best known as America's most outspoken lawyer of last resort, presents this first class and highly insightful and readable book.

As is with all great teachers, Dershowitz always has the most perceptive ability to anticipate questions and clearly explains with wit and his unique compelling writing style, making the otherwise dry legal concepts and jargons at once fascinating and informative as well as going beyond the legal. This is a riveting read for anyone not just people in the legal field.

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? [Pagination is from the hardcover version.]

Fantastic read. must have for anyone who cares about the american legal system.

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.