Customer Reviews

AND JUSTICE FOR SOME: An Expose of the Lawyers and Judges Who Let Dangerous Criminals Go Free

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

There's no presumption of innocence, no exculpatory evidence, no right to council.

Even in her interviews flogging this book, she's claiming that the Duke LaCrosse players are guilty - 6 months after the attorney general said they are the innocent victims of a frame.

Murphy is one of the people that perpetrated that frame. She should be shunned by anyone serious about justice. This collection of anecdotes of criminals who've been set free and re-offended does nothing to rehabilitate her.

And Justice for Some is an eye opening look at the criminal justice system and how it treats rape victims. As former prosecutor and author Wendy Murphy relates, rape victims often receive little or no justice in America. In many cases, including for instance, in the Kobe Bryant case, the victim find themselves on trial in the court of public opinion.

Murphy relates some real horror stories such as that of Judge Eric Cashman who sentenced a rapist who had engaged in four years of systematic rape of a little girl to a mere 60 days in jail. Murphy also offers some interesting solutions such as having victim's advocates to oppose the defense lawyers in trials.

However, Murphy's advocacy on behalf of rape victims is tarnished a bit by her role in the Duke University Lacrosse Case. She was on TV frequently taking the point of view that the lacrosse players were all guilty as sin. Given her prominence on TV shows concerning this case, you would think that she would have devoted some space at least to this case. If so, you would be wrong since there is nothing in this book about this particular case or why she got things wrong.

Despite this caveat, this is a well researched and sharply written book and as such is well recommended.

I know nothing about Wendy Murphy or her alleged role in the Duke Lacross case so I will have to judge this book on its own merits.

I agreed with much that the author had to say. There should be rights for victims and we should have as much (more even) sympathy for victims than we do for those accused of harming others. I think it would be hard for anyone to argue otherwise. However, I found much of the actual writing in this book to be lacking. The author spent a lot of time on her soapbox and much less time detailing actual examples or telling any stories. I think some lessons in story telling would help the author become a better writer.

Overall, it was a decent book with some good ideas but the weak writing left something to be desired.

Wendy Murphy is a lawyer who represents victims of violent crime. She goes behind the scenes and shows us how defendants (criminals, the accused) are taken care of by the legal system more than their victims. In fact, often defense attorneys investigate victims and try to put the blame for the crime on them instead of where it belongs.

Since Ms. Murphy comes from a background of having prosecuted criminals, she is well acquainted with defense attorney tactics. She gives us valuable insight into such famous trials as O.J. Simpson's and Robert Blake's and how attorneys (defense and prosecuting) and judges all made mistakes.

Ms. Murphy not only goes into what's wrong with our system but also offers helpful suggestions should the reader ever end up as a victim in criminal or civil court. A well-researched and well-written book.

Highly recommended.

Valerie Matteson
Ann Arbor, Michigan

For more on Wendy's atrocious behavior throughout the Duke rape frame, read Until Proven Innocent by Stuart Taylor and K. C. Johnson. She is mentioned 10 times in the index. To my knowledge she has yet to apologize.

Defense attorneys will hate this book. But if you are a victim of a crime, you need to read it. Murphy, a former prosecutor turned victim's rights advocate, shows how our system has turned its back on crime victims. For example it shows the harm our criminal justice system does to victims when we allow defendants to gain needless access to private therapy records. Did you know that if you DON'T commit a crime, you CAN'T intrude into a private person's privileged files -- but if you DO commit a crime, you can?
The book is easy to read and actually never gets dry or boring. Murphy uses well known cases we all are familiar with to cover topics in such a way that you don't need a law degree to understand what she is saying. Get this book and I guarantee you will have a better understanding of what is really going on behind the scenes in high profile criminal cases.

Consider Murphy's behavior during the Duke Rape Hoax. Murphy called the Duke Lacrosse players rapists at a time when hard evidence was emerging that no rape had taken place. Murphy has said Mike Nifong had no political agenda in prosecuting the Lacrosse players, that he was a shoe-in for election as Durham DA. Prior to the Democratic primary, Nifong trailed Freda Black by double figures in the polls. He had fired Freda Black from th DA's office. He knew Freda Black would fire him if she were elected. Murphy supported Nifong's illegal and unethical withholding of exculpatory DNA evidence from the Defendants. De Facto, therefore, Murphy supported Nifong's lying to the court about withholding the exculpatory evidence. Murphy claims the Defense is suppressing evidence about the case even though a number of commentators have reported seeing the entire discovery file. Personally, I have to wonder about Murphy's attitudes to Nifong's whole illegal, unconstitutional prosecution of the case - does she consider it proper to inflame public opinion against suspects before charges have been filed, to undermine suspects' right to counsel, to undermine suspects' right to remain silent? Does she consider it proper to falsely state that suspects are not cooperating with police? Does she consider it proper to coerce people into giving incriminating testimony against suspects? Does she consider it proper to intimidate a witness who can provide testimony which can exonerate a suspect? Does she consider it proper for a DA to refuse to hear alibi evidence from a suspect? Nifong did all that. Murphy supported Nifong. In my opinion, Murphy is an advocate not for victims' rights but for Gross Nifong style Prosecutorial Abuse.

This is the most dissappointing nonfiction book I have ever read. The cover and preface indicate examples of miscarrage of justice examples by attoneys and judges. Those "examples" could have been cited in one chapter of this 22 chapter book. The rest of the book is filled with "opinions" of the author critizing attornys and judges based soley on personal opinion, none of which is supported by fact. The crowning glory is when she defends the prosecution of Martha Stewart as anti feminism. I was sorely dissappointed in Mrs Murphy's attempt at justice reform.

I think if you're somebody who is big on justice, and the bad guys getting their due a little more often, this book offers two things: 1 - a very fast-moving readable book; 2 - a book that might get your blood pressure to go through the roof!

Man, this gets frustrating to read about all these decisions made by judges, attorneys and jurors which make no common sense and are a disgrace to our judicial system. Murphy presents to interesting cases, in that regard - not just the famous ones.

I'm not surprised to see a mix of five-star or one-star reviews. Depending on your politics, you'll either love or hate the book. To me, the woman usually - not always - makes a good case. I mean, how can you not sympathize with victims of senseless crime, especially when they are children?

It is a legal truism that rape is the easiest charge in the world to bring and the hardest to refute. Not so for Ms. Murphy. The mere fact that a woman alleges a sexual assault is enough, for her, to prove guilt. Actually,in Murphy's World, the mere fact that woman doesn't allege a sexual assault also proves guilt because the woman is probably afraid to come forward because those dang ol' criminal defense lawyers will hide behind the Constitution and actually do what they are mandated by law and ethics to do, namely, cross examine. The minuscule part of the legal world that paid attention to Ms. Murphy's ravings during the Duke case still awaits her mea culpa. A simple "Ooops" would do.