Customer Reviews

Objection!: How High-Priced Defense Attorney's Celebrity Defendents, and a 24/7 Media Have Hijacked Our Criminal

5 star:		(43)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(38)

 

 

"Objection" is nothing but a rant after rant. There is little coherent in this book. There is no sequence to the chapters and it proves that to be "famous" one just need be controversial, not factual.
For example, Grace spends a great deal of time blistering the criminal justice system for the way it treats victims. She includes a chapter on the New York Central Park jogger case, complaing about the way original case was defended. Amazingly, she makes no mention at all of the fact that the original defendants were unjustly convicted and served many years in jail for a crime they didn't commit. One wonders if ignoring the facts was something she practiced when she was a prosecutor.
That this fact gets not even a footnote in her book makes all of the book suspect.
While the cover of the book proclaims that it takes a look at the inside story of the criminal justice system, she also takes a pot shot at the civil justice system, a part of the law about which she has no experience. She repeats worn out myths about the "McDonalds's hot coffee case", again displaying an astonishing lack of research.
Nancy Grace fans will probably like the book. I was on the fence about her from watching her on TV, but seeing how shallow this book is, I think it makes anything she says or writes about really suspect.

Nancy Grace has co-authored a book decrying the negative influence of 24/7 media and celebrity defendants?!?! She made her millions by slinging mud at celebrity defendants, convicting them on T.V. before they've even been arrested. You need look no further than the cover of the book, which was actually authored by Diana Clehane, but whose name and photo do we see? - one that sells books - Nancy Grace's.

I have to agree with Ms. Clehane and Ms. Grace on one point: We should get rid of the cable shows focusing hour-after-hour on particularly celebrated criminal cases.
But they missed the target in the first part of their book's title... Our focus should not just be on "high-priced defense attorneys" but high-priced, million-book-selling, T.V. drama queens that proclaim their distorted ideas of "justice" as a prosecution system, absent defenses; one where no man is innocent - we're all guilty if she makes that her almighty determination.

Our legal system is not, and should not be, a prosecution mill Ms. Grace.

To be objective is the goal of my review, and I am asking my readers to also see this approach by Grace objectively in your mind. There is an obvious crucial problem in the USA with the type of crimes Grace exploits. And if you have read this book and watched Grace over any length of time you will see with open eyes the fact of exploiting the offender and the victim. I want to ask you up front, how does this help? To give example when the murder kidnapping took place recently in Idaho, Grace was asking the officer on scene, about the gruesome details of the murdered victims. In the Jackson trial she jokes of the circumstances surrounding Jackson such as the spider bite, his pajama's, his back problem and makes them comical excuses. If Jackson is Guilty, bring on the Justice he deserves, but in the meantime does this give Grace the right to act like a 12 year old? How does this help us? I am sincerely asking, be objective, and lets take this a step further, why does Nancy Grace bring in the "Glove", the Jackson glove and flash it on CNN? Is this the type of intellect we should be respecting and regarding? Or is this about ratings, have we fallen into the Springer/Geraldo world?? What is the purpose of this and joke around in front of Larry King about this, Larry wasn't laughing, but Nancy laughs at her own jokes. Nancy certainly is having a good time, is this an objective approach to reducing sex offenses in the USA? No, it most certainly is not, if anything she is opening a possible door for allowing the weak to become what we don't want them to be. And the weak are the ones who molest children, not being rational minded,,, which do not pay attention to Graces tactics more or less fully comprehend the law. So we are to say, I am sorry afterwards and not use our god given sense and combat these crimes objectively before they take place? We take it so seriously afterwards, and then joke around about it during trial.
Grace also stresses evidence, which separates humans as accepting each other. Once again I say, If Jackson is guilty, serve him Justice. Nancy's evidence log does not revolve around the fact that whether he did or did not commit a crime. Grace emphasis is on such things as the form and markings of Jackson's Penis being identified by one of the accusers. Many such pieces of evidence like this, actually an over emphasis on evidence like this. We are human, not creatures to be ashamed of one another. When I was a child I saw my female gym teachers in the shower, and many such cases similar. We accepted each other; Nancy is certainly viewing this in a very shallow and limited mind. We Americans are becoming such individuals we are fearing each other of crossing the line of respect and ashamed of our bodies? So much invented fear of being molested because someone saw a human without his clothes on!! Are we not able to see what we are without the self inflicted horror that because Jackson has a penis we accuse him of child molestation before the Jury lets out??? You have to ask why does the USA have more people in prison than any other nation for this exact same accusation. If you have never been to a foreign country, it may be hard for you to relate, men walk with boys nude throughout the world, and women with girls the same, in many cases its mixed, if you doubt me, go to a Japanese bath house, or to a German indoor swimming pool, there are hundreds of other examples much less private everywhere outside the USA. I only bring up this corner of surely usable evidence used by Nancy to further my case of realism as opposed to the real intent of Grace, or if she really knows what she is doing.
Now, what is the point of this book and Nancy Grace's view then? It is an after the fact exploitation of the crime to assist the victim by locking up the offender, WHICH REALLY DOES NOT HAPPEN EITHER WAY!! Convicted sex offenders are out and by the hundreds of thousands. The victims have been made popular and have extreme shock for being exploited publicly. Grace's approach does not bring pride to the victim, but fame, deep from the heart UN wanted fame.
So what is the point of my book review? The secret is prevention, not after the fact exploitation and desire to increase ones ratings on CNN. The number one prevention measure should be complete subject matter education in elementary schools for all children. Being smart is the best prevention, especially if we made the potential weak offender smart on the subject before he was able to be a molester. If you don't want to be raped, if you don't want your children molested, watch them and watch yourself by not being alone (This 18 year old in Aruba was abducted when she was alone). Protect yourself in a number of ways. I am in no way shifting the blame, I'm accepting the fact that the killer, the rapist, the child molester does in fact exist so I help you better by saying the way to rid the problem is to prevent it. When the offender is caught, get rid of him or her. Don't let them out for anything. Look what has happened in Florida, a repeat offender, this is happening everywhere in the USA. What someone needs to do, is write a book on PREVENTION, not on After The Fact IM so sorry approach. A in public school program needs to be installed to teach children at a very early age encompassing this entire subject.
So I ask you to objectively look at Grace, a government prosecutor who was rejected from being a Judge, she is not helping; she is advertising the problem in its hideous Mad Light.

This book is full of lots of raw emotion directed against defense attorneys, celebrities, judges, juries and lots of others. The pattern to it is that the emotion is directed against those either who Nancy Grace thinks are guilty or who don't think that Nancy Grace does. The book tries to very loosely offer a plan to make the criminal justice system better, but the plan is ill-defined and weak.

Her objections, summarized by me, are:

- She wants tighter controls on the behavior of the defense.
- She doesn't seem to like the jury system at all
- She wants to re-define downward the standard for guilt. Rather than prosecutors having to prove guilt, the prosecutor would be allowed to make a circumstantial or emotional case for guilt.

She spends a whole lot of time attacking defense attorneys in the book, but its not really credible because its a one-sided attack where she is blind to the possiblity of misconduct by
prosecutors.

The problem with the book is that Nancy Grace is blind to her own faults and her own behavior. She is critical of 24/7 News coverage of trials, but doesn't deal with her own large role in that coverage. She is also blind to the problems in her record as a prosecutor.

Since leaving the prosecutor's office, Nancy Grace has been sharply repremanded by three different appeals courts for unethical and illegal behavior while she was a prosecutor. Her behavior was called illegal by every judge on the Georgia Supreme Court. Georgia is not exactly a friendly place for criminal defense and the lengths the court went in calling out Nancy Grace for ethical violations was very unusual.

They said she:

- Misrepresented facts to the trial judge so that her out of state witness could access the defendants home without the knowledge of the defense. Her witness gained access by breaking down the front door. For good measure, she subsequently also entered the defendants home with CNN cameras.

- Outright misrepresented the testimony of witnesses (falsely indicating in her closing argument that a defense witness had not disagreed with an opinion of the state).

- She inserted false information regarding hearing dates into a court proceeding to gain an advantage.

- She repeatedly ignored the instructions of the court. For example, she made multiple references to issues in her opening statement that the court had ruled (previously) to be inadmissiable.

- She failed to disclose a romantic relationship she knew about between two of her witnesses to the defense. She deliberatly held back her full witness list until the start of the trial.

For those interested, the case was: Carr v. State, 267 Ga. 701, 482 S.E.2d 314 (1997). Its a very detailed case study in how Nancy Grace abused her power as a prosecutor and how she operated without any real sort of ethics.

The court summarized her conduct in really harsh language:
begin quote -

Our review of the record supports Carr's contention that the prosecuting attorney engaged in an extensive pattern of inappropriate and, in some cases, illegal conduct in the course of the trial.

end quote -

This isn't one bad judge, its the entire very conservative usually pro prosection Georgia Supreme Court giving that opinion.

Its also important to remember that the person involved is free today only because he was rich and had the money to hire the lawyers to fight back against what she was trying to do. Most people would have ended up in jail for the rest of their lives.

Now you can choose to think that Nancy was right in this case and that somehow the entire court system of a state is so corrupt that it is misrepresenting the facts to free a man in a corrupt manner. But if you step back from that, your left with a prosecutor in Nancy Grace whose record of abuse in court is horrible. They didn't say sort-of illegal or maybe illegal, they said illegal.

Nancy has nothing to say about this. Since she doesn't participate in any forum that she doesn't control, nobody really has the chance to ask her about it. And this isn't her only problem with an appeals court.

This is important because it shows the big flaw of the book: hypocrisy. The book gets three stars because its a very useful book to read to see the dishonesty and maybe even self-deception that is behind Nancy Grace. The legal system does have ethical problems and problems with the media. But its not just defense attorneys, its prosecutors too. Its also almost surreal to see Nancy Grace of all people object to the media culture of 24/7 surrounding trials.

After reading this book, I can't say much to recommend it. Nancy Grace is a really messed up person who doesn't understand the difference law and revenge. The hate inside her just drips out on the page. The problem with hate like that is that it can end up hurting innocent people.

You will not find in the book much mention of a man named Richard Ricci. He was a totally innocent man who Nancy determined was guilty. She screamed day after day on television for his arrest in the Elizibeth Smart kidnapping. After weeks of claims that he was obviously guilty by Nancy in particular, the police put him in jail and tried to get a confession from him. He died in jail at which point Nancy went back on TV telling everyone that we would probably never know the truth about Elizebeth Smart. As much as telling everyone that the case was no longer worth pursuing.

But later, due to the family (and in spite of Nancy Grace), the little girl was recovered and it became clear that Richard Ricci was as he had claimed to be until his death in jail: a totally innocent man.

What did Nancy have to say after this? She had little to say but above everything else she never said she was sorry and never expressed any regret in destroying an innocent man. A man was dead in the ground and for all her supposed empathy for victims, she didn't even accept that he or his loved ones were victims.

Nancy Grace claims to help victims. But nothing could be further from the truth. She uses victims to fill television time and to make money for herself. She uses victims, their emotions and their stories to draw TV ratings from freaks who are attracted not to laws or courts, but to the hearing the details of violent crimes.

Anyone looking for anything reasonable about the law in the book might as well look elsewhere. Her ideas about legal reform are real simple: Get rid of ALL the lawyers and let prosecutors put whoever they think is guilty in jail.

What comes across in some pages is hate for other lawyers and court process. To Nancy, having defense lawyers or juries in court is an insult to the integrity of prosecutors and gets in the way of them doing their job. Prosecutors (like her) are good people who would never bring a case against an innocent person.

The lowest point in the book is when she shares her warped legal ideas about how juries are supposed to decide cases. Nancy Grace says that _beyond a reasonable doubt_ isn't to do with proving a case, its a jury using intuition. If a jury thinks someone is guilty even though the facts are not there, they have to find the person guilty because they would not think that unless the prosecutor had proved their case.

There isn't much more to say about the book. Other than its a good indicator of whats going wrong with the country. innocent until proven guilty is going out of fashion. Now, the only innocent people are the accusers/victims and to be accused is to be the same as guilty.

And as for anyone foolish enough to think that the current legal system is criminal friendly, I hope you either have millions of dollars for lawyers or never get accused of a crime. Because when you get into court, you may well find out that the system isn't what you thought it was. You may well find yourself in court with a lunatic prosecutor who will pass moral judgement on your life in five minutes and decide that your obviously guilty based on nothing more than a hunch. The reason we have courts and lawyers is because taking people's lives away from them is not something that should ever be done in a hurry or done based on emotion or revenge.

She's opinionated, ignorant, prejudicial, arrogant, and, yes, bitchy. Nancy is PROOF anybody can be a lawyer; Nancy abuses the power of the microphone. If you want to see how the justice system DOESN'T work in America, this is a good read. If you want to see how the justice system DOES work in America, it is a good read. If you want to see WHY the justice system doesn't work, just look at the Author, here. . .

Nancy is so blinded by her agenda--attacking defense attorneys and defendants--that she manipulates or ignores facts that are contrary to her extreme views. I have rarely heard anything worthwhile come out of her mouth on CourtTV, and this book is no different. I hope readers (and CourtTV viewers) who are less informed about the judicial system (I am a lawyer) realize not to take anything she says at face value.

Nancy Grace's theme in this book is to bewail the tricks and successes of defense lawyers. She cites some cases where this directly led to tragic crimes committed by a defendant getting off for a prior crime.

While I sympathize with her point of view, I don't know what can be done about it. On the other side is the problem of people being unjustly sentenced for crimes they did not commit - fortunately new DNA evidence has exonerated a number of them. However, the reality is that tightening the system to release fewer guilty people will more than likely also lead to more innocent people being sentenced to life in prison, or even death. (See Bill Kurtis' "Death Penalty on Trial.

Nancy Grace has the unbridled arrogance that only the truly ordinary can possess. Former prosecutor Grace-and all of these true-believing dimbulbs are "former prosecutors"-wants the criminal justice system to do away with defense lawyers so that anyone accused of a crime can more easily be imprisoned or executed. She doesn't care much for trials either, since prosecutors and judges (blessed be they) could work better without them. There is no such thing as innocence in Grace's world. Besides, even if the accused didn't do what he's charged with he probably did something else. This woman just can not fathom that a police officer or a witness could lie, that witnesses can be mistaken, that scientific evidence can be faked, that prosecutors can tamper with, manufacture or withhold evidence, that the innocent-yes, the actually innocent-can be, and will be again, arrested, convicted, jailed and executed.

What a book. Bland and pedestrian, yet vitriolic and nonsensical all at once. Quite an achievement. Were Ms. Grace to be taken seriously the entire Bill of Rights would have to be scrapped. It really sticks in her craw that OJ is breathing free air and yes, Johnny Cochran did the greatest job of lawyering since Daniel Webster bested the devil, but he was aided and abetted by a lying cop and by some very sorry prosecutors. Ms. Grace ignores the fact that these same prosecutors-thoroughly undressed by Cochran in public-scampered from the courtroom while "not guilty" was still echoing off the walls so that they could cash in on their new celebrity. Celebrity justice indeed.

I am been a fan of Nancy's for years-mainly because she is so pro-prosecution. Her book points out-accurately-that defense attorneys and money can cloud justice. She is not wrong in this opinion-she just voices it louder and stronger than most. More power to her. We all have our faults, but can a woman who is such an advocate for victims be so bad?? She has a huge heart for victims-and a sharper tongue for the accused. If you don't like it-change the channel.
GREAT BOOK NANCY! ( and I loved the Jackson glove, personally)