5 comments about The Tyrannicide Brief.

1. This is an excellent read. I did not know a whole lot about the trial and execution of Charles I before reading this book, but I always subscribed to the view that the dastardly Oliver Cromwell had unfairly done away with him. This book challenges that common assumption.
   
   However the real focus of Geoffrey Robertson's book is on John Cooke, the lawyer who accepted the brief to try the king. Robertson's account of John Cooke's life is a true inspiration to lawyers to abide by their principles rather than choosing the politically safer option. Unfortunately it is apparent from the book the John Cooke was quite exceptional amongst the lawyers of the time in taking a principled approach.
   
   Also as a Christian, I found the account of John Cooke's faith in Jesus Christ to be inspirational. It is this faith which gave John Cooke the strength to "die well" despite being drawn and quartered.
   
   A great read!



2. This is without doubt the most cynical re-writing of history I am yet to read (and believe me that is saying something). To present the illegal trial of King Charles I as a good deed beggars belief!
   This book falls down because it glosses over the fact that Colonel Pride purged the House of Commons of some 150 members leaving a small rump of 80 members who were totally dependent on the Army, therefore giving Cromwell his way to put the King on trial. Not to mention that the House of Lords were not part of the process.
   
   Having read the book and listened to Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC put forward his points in interviews, it is clear to me that he has his own agenda for writing such a book as this.



3. I confess: I like the way Geoffrey Robertson thinks and the way he writes even if I don't always agree with his conclusions. This book is a great read. If you can suspend your knowledge of the history (and any associated bias) and look at the events through the perspective of the law, then this is a wonderful fresh look at the legal issues uncovered/exposed by these events.
   This book is not just about the events of 17th century England. The issues discussed reverberate today in the trials of modern war criminals and leaders.
   
   Highly recommended to all who have an interest in history, the law and contemporary international events.



4. Along with Dickens' Bleak House, this book is a must read for all common law lawyers and those who aspire to join the profession (to be read after Bleak House!!). It is a riveting story unto itself, describing the first piercing (and the last for another 300 years) of the shield of sovereign immunity by a low-born, commoner barrister whose courage, character and conviction allowed him to face down and bring to book one of the most brutal dictators of his day, King Charles Stuart I of England. The parallels between the trial of Charles 360 years ago and those of Milosevic and Saddam today are unnerving to say the least.
   
   If only we had Robertson's protagonist, John Cooke, with us today to take on similar prosecutions--Charles' trial , sentencing and execution took all of 2 weeks--a shameful rebuke to those incompetent bureaucrats running our present day War Crimes' Tribunals (which incompetents recently allowed Milosevic to slip the "noose" of justice, such as it is today, by dying in his bed after more than 4 years of aimless prosecution). To make matters worse, Charles was probably even afforded purer due process.
   
   Robertson's exhortation in his epilogue to human rights lawyers and campaigners to work towards the passage of an anti-tyranny covention under the auspices of the UN to allow for the lawful removal (as opposed to the current reliance on the principle of might makes right) of sovereign dictators and despots who are culpable of tyranny and other crimes against humanity towards their own citizens is spot on. The problem is that the UN today in many ways acts with the impunity of a tyrant towards its own staff and other third parties, and can never be trusted to be the court of last resort to prosecute the likes of Saddam, Mugabe and their ilk.



5. This is a book that should be read by all American lawyers and law students. It puts the lie to the various myths about the development of Anglo-American law and its near godlike propagandists like Coke and Hale. With a little thought we see exactly what the framers of the American constitution hoped to avoid when they put limits on the power of the government. Thank God, so to speak, that we no longer draw and quarter (as revoltingly described in great, yet necessary, detail) as punishment. The United States and the Commonwealth are fortunate to have inheirited their legal systems well after this dark period.
   
   That said, Geoffrey Robertson writes with great insight and wit. He is a pleasure to read with his insights into today's problems with tyrants and his acerbic observations. Robertson, surpisingly, even knows about "speed dating" and suggests that Puritans indulged. Imagine that.
   
   Robertson is one of those nice lawyers who enjoys afflicting the comfortable (the majority of lawyers) and comforting the afflicted.

No comments about The International Judge: An Introduction to the Men and Women Who Decide the World's Cases.

2 comments about Gleanings from an Unplanned Life: An Annotated Oral History.

1. An interesting book, it is based on the transcript of a series of interviews Judge Buckley did in the mid 1990s in connection with a legal oral history project. The book takes the form of a question and answer session, "annotated" by Judge Buckley to clarify and expand upon some of his answers. The book follows Buckley's life from his youth through college, his service in World War II and beyond.
   
   Buckley is the brother of William F. Buckley and as such got caught up in the burgeoning conservative movement in the 1950s and 60s. In 1970, he found himself elected to the Senate as the candidate of the New York Conservative Party, winning a three way race. After being defeated for reelection in 1976, in the early 1980s he joined the Reagan administration, most prominently as president of Radio Free Europe. One of his former campaign volunteers was responsible for finding potential judicial nominees, so Buckley found himself on the DC Circuit, hearing appeals mostly from administrative law issues. Through it all, he found time to raise a large family, help run his family oil business and indulge his love of nature.
   
   What is most fascinating about the book is that all of it was unplanned. While serving in the Pacific during World War II, Buckley decided he really wanted the quiet life of a country lawyer in rural Connecticut. He never got his wish, but seems to have had no regrets. The book is an interesting memoir on one of an obscure, but important, figure in American post-WWII history.



2. Besides a very good read of his varied life as a US Senator, US Circuit Judge, US Under Secretary of State, Judge Buckley's memoir is best when he discusses his life after Pearl Harbor. He was all over the South Pacific on an LST (Landing Ship Tank)and his memory of the action in the Battle of Leyte Gulf is amazingly vivid these 60 years later. In more than 2 years at sea, he slept only 5 nights ashore. His fondness and expertise in birds is amazing as well as touching. He comes across as a very humble person. His service to his country is an inspiration. One might ask: how many Yalies go to war now...or in Viet Nam ??????

3 comments about Stand Tall.

1. "Stand Tall" was probably the most self-serving autobiography I've ever read. On every other page of the book, McKinnon heroically battles racism. Somehow, with the institutional racism rampant in the Detroit Police Department, McKinnon manages to work as a patrol officer for only about 2 years. As a matter of fact, only about 20 pages of the book are dedicated to his patrol career.

   One telling story involved McKinnon chasing a man who ran away from a stolen car. McKinnon chases the man into an apartment building, and through the door of an apartment. The next thing he knows, he's staring down the barrels of automatic weapons being wielded by a nest of Black Panthers. McKinnon grabs his prisoner and backs out of this Mexican standoff to admonitions of "Be cool man.." from the leader of the Panthers. When he gets outside, a bunch of neighbors come out of their houses and form a protective circle around McKinnon and the prisoner to escort them out of harm's way. Touching. However, what the book doesn't address is what McKinnon did about the group of dangerous men armed with automatic weapons who just pointed them at a police officer! He probably had no case on the guy who ran away from the stolen car (he wasn't driving) but it looks like he chose to take THAT guy to jail rather than call in reinforcements to arrest a bunch of armed and dangerous felony suspects! Later in the book, McKinnon talks about a cop who was killed by the Black Panthers. I had to wonder if the Panther who killed him was one of the guys McKinnon let go.

   Within 2 years of being hired, McKinnon is assigned to a "gravy" job at Recruiting. Shortly after that, he's working directly for the mayor. Thus begins his meteoric rise to the top. "Stand Tall" is a cream-puff of a book that offers a detailed look at every positive aspect of McKinnon's career. It doesn't even pay lip service to any of the negative aspects that could conceivably cause him to be viewed in a negative light. For instance; why did McKinnon quit as chief of police in the middle of his friend and "homey" (his words, not mine) Dennis Archer's term as mayor? Did he just wake up one day and decide "Well, it's time for me to do something else. I think I'll bail out on Homey in the middle of his term." Or was there another reason? I guess we'll have to wait for someone else's biography to learn the answer to that one.

   The Detroit Police Department has a long-standing practice of arresting witnesses to crimes, especially homicides, with no probable cause that they did anything wrong, in order to intimidate them into providing information that they would not otherwise provide. Earlier in his career, McKinnon takes a dim view of arresting people in the absence of probable cause. However, as Chief, he lets the practice continue. Could it be that he's willing to sanction the violation of citizens' constitutional rights if it would help raise the DPD's dismally low clearance rate for homicides? I don't know, he never addresses the issue.

   McKinnon takes credit for everything he possibly can with virtually no mention of the efforts of his subordinates. The local media plays a bigger part in the book than the people who back him up as chief.

   McKinnon appears to take credit for personally solving the Nancy Kerrigan case. After the figure skater is bopped on the knee, Ike eventually asks her father where she is. He valiantly checks the pool in case the bad guys try to drown her, and the outside of the Westin Hotel in case someone tries to push her off a steep incline. He finally finds her in the last place he looks (her hotel room). McKinnon refers to the Kerrigan case as "an international story, the likes of which Detroit has never seen". Detroit had the Collingwood massacre of Purple Gang members, a nationally televised beating of suburban women by Detroit residents at the International Fireworks downtown, a former police chief who embezzled millions, status as "murder capitol" for several years, but a figure skater who gets assaulted is a story the likes of which the city has never seen? Sure.

   McKinnon leaves no truth unadulterated in his quest for hyperbole and melodrama. He describes the Rodney King beating as a case where police officers beat King while he was on the ground with a chain around his neck. A chain around his neck? He describes Detroit's own "Rodney King" incident as a situation where Malice Green was beaten by police officers and died right there in the street. Also not true. It's a point of pride with him that he saw to it that his officers were issued pepper spray after the Malice Green incident. Pretty proactive of Dr. McKinnon to wait until someone dies to equip his officers with something that other officers all over the state have had for years. I eagerly await "Stand Tall Part Deux" to read "the rest of the story".




2. I recommend this wonderful book for anybody who wants to become a police officer, especially African Americans and other minorities interested in this field. Dr. McKinnon does an excellent job with expressing his feelings about his experiences with the Detroit Police Department, racism, and why it was important for him to join the Detroit Police Department. Dr. McKinnon's book is a true defition of the American dream (especially for minorities) and I guarantee this book will inspire you to follow your dreams regardless of how tough it gets! I've met Dr. McKinnon once and I hope to meet him again so he can autograph my book. Get your copy today!



3. This book was recommended to me by friends in Michigan and it should be on everyone's bookshelf. Ike McKinnon's story is one of perseverence, dedication, and an incredible ability to remain above the fray and disease of society. It's pure inspiration to read about his life and how he rose above everything, not letting himself become tainted, to help people, help clean up the city of Detroit, and help straighten out its police department. It's motivational, inspiring, and Oprah should know about it!

3 comments about Fighting Injustice.

1. In my first year of law school, the vocal Michael Tigar had a reputation around campus for being strategically dramatic and professionally pragmatic. In Fighting Injustice, however, the paper Tigar mixes history and amusement with quite personal anecdotes to gain the confidence, interest and compassion of his readers. The book is structured chronologically from his life as a child growing up in California through the recent past just before 9/11. He uses his own cases to exemplify the quest for justice in such areas as sexual/gender discrimination, military justice proceedings, draft board cases, death penalty and even the carefully orchestrated pomp of debates hosted by William F. Buckley, Jr.
   Fighting Injustice is the third book Tigar has authored for the American Bar Association, for which he served in various chair positions of the Litigation Section in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The book includes two important themes that have shaped Tigar's sense of justice and have gotten him into interesting and sometimes entertaining circumstances. One important theme is the light and dark aspects of affiliating with justice-seeking groups. Tigar begins the book with a discussion about his early childhood. His father worked at various jobs that were available to an ex-military man with minimal education until he ultimately joined a workers' union in California. His father's connection with the union resulted in young Michael's receiving autographed pictures of Roy Rogers and Gene Autry, who were his movie heroes at the time. On one occasion, Roy Rogers came over to a table where young Michael and his father were seated to discuss hunting.
   
   Later in life, Tigar would experience a darker side of fraternizing with justice seeking groups. Throughout college, young Tigar worked tirelessly in student body government at the University of California at Berkley to support such causes as the free speech movement in the waning days of McCarthyism, abolishment of capital punishment and racial equality. His efforts included sit-ins, picketing and boycotts of stores that refused service to African-Americans. Later in law school, Tigar successfully led a campaign to remove the loyalty oath from the California bar student application. He argued that the oath unconstitutionally restricted freedom of speech by preventing bar members to "advocate the violent overthrow of the government." These activities later created political difficulties and pressures from the FBI and other governmental agencies when Tigar later sought employment as a law clerk to Justice Brennan of the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Brennan initially promised Tigar the position, but later reneged without any explanation. These and similar experiences recounted in Fighting Injustice suggest that Tigar's personal experiences with controversy motivated an understanding that justice seeking groups are made up of loved ones and heroes; whereas, those who execute the law can damage a person in ways that may have no practical defense or remedy.
   
   Another important theme of Tigar's theory of justice is his own desire for independence and control. As early as junior high school, young Tigar gained the election of student body president. Later, he practiced as an attorney for the renowned litigator Ed Williams in Washington D.C. at the Williams & Connolly law firm. Williams was famous for entertaining clients and other lawyers on any number of subjects at bars after work. Tigar, however, preferred to attend such gatherings only on occasion or when absolutely necessary. Tigar also experienced to his displeasure the leadership of Joe Califano at Williams & Connolly. Califano tended to lead the firm toward a bureaucratic practice that conflicted with Tigar's "organized chaos" conception of litigation.
   
   Fighting Injustice includes very few aspects that will disappoint the reader. Tigar falls short of, however, a complete development of his criticism of civil law practice. He makes a few critical remarks about the apparent importance of billable hours and the apparent bureaucratic management in civil firms, but falls short of proposing an alternative to the problems. Indeed, his criticism appears to be little more than accusing civil law firms of being motivated by money and being too efficient. His contrast of civil practice with his criminal practice, which includes approximately one-third pro bono cases, lacks a fair discussion of the different factors and incentives involved in civil and criminal practices. Although his brief criticism demonstrates perceived problems, its presentation belies a thorough understanding of the differences between the civil and criminal practices of law or a reasonable alternative.
   
   The factors contributing to injustice in the U.S.A. in virtually every criminal law context are developed with mastery and passion in Fighting Injustice. Michael Tigar uses a writing style that entertains and educates readers without assuming legal training, while simultaneously providing gems of instruction in the art of legal advocacy.



2. As I read this book, I found myself saying "this is why I went to law school" again and again. As an example of what someone can do with a law degree and a conscience, no one surpasses Michael Tigar. Young lawyers should read this for inspiration. Law students should read this to remind themselves why sitting through four hours of Contracts or Evidence or Federal Courts matters. Activists should read this to relish the victories and learn new approaches. Anyone who has ever watched The Practice or Law & Order should read this to understand what criminal defense lawyers really do.



3. A vivid and engaging glimpse into the highstakes game of constitutional law. What's at issue is whether there will be any control at all over police and prosecutors in the USA. The cases and issues frame the world we in the USA will all have to live in, and it would be a far better one were Tigar's side to win. In the voice of an experienced (and winning) storyteller, Tigar takes the reader through the strategies, gambles and often humorous surprises of his stellar career of high profile cases. I'm a musician, not a lawyer (though I know some of the people Tigar mentions), and was never at a loss due to technical language left unexplained. A great book.

2 comments about Of Men and Mountains: The Classic Memoir of Wilderness Adventure.

1. This book is a wonderful and gentle journey of one man who loved to be in the mountains! As an adult I started backpacking the very areas Douglas talks about in the book and have grown quite fond of the southern portion of the Cascades. Names like Darling Mountain, Fryingpan Lake, Fifes Peak, Old Snowy Mountain and Conrad Meadows - I've been to most of these places!
   
   Through Justice Douglas I get to see how it was so long ago! Very well written, you get to hear about the adventures of young men growing up and doing the things that young men did in the early 1900s. And while specific to the Wallowas and the south central Cascades, the story is told as if the forests he visits were the forests closest to you. Each little lesson he learns, he shares. Tips on cooking and fishing and surviving - and how to be a little less afraid and a little more inspired. These are the forests that are visited by wise scholars and simple horsemen and everyone in between.
   
   The book is definitely not a work of fiction - you couldn't possibly describe these places in the way that he does without having been there. The book is about real places with real people. Don't take my word for it - drive to Tampico near Yakima in Washington and hike up to Darling Mountain. Then go down to Conrad Meadows and to the Tieton Basin. Walk across Highway 12 and up Indian Creek trail to the Blankenship Meadows and then up to the top of Tumac Mountain. When you're tired looking as far as the eye can see, go down to Twin Sisters Lake for bit of fishing and a night of rest before the long journey to Bumping Lake and then on to Goose Prairie where Douglas once lived. These are a few of the places that Justice Douglas takes you to.
   
   If you want the controversy of William O. Douglas read "Wild Bill: The Legend and Life of William O. Douglas". If you want to read about men and mountains, then I highly suggest this book.



2. When I first read this book several years ago, I was truly inspired by it. This is a delightful story of a boy that overcame the seemingly insurmountable obstacle of paralysis (if memory serves, induced by polio) by forcing himself to walk in the mountains of the great Northwest, and eventually becoming a United States Supreme Court Justice. Finding his strength and his soul (and his paralysis cure!) in the wilderness, he would often retreat to the great outdoors. This is a story of his lessons, and his adventures. A wonderful read.
   
   There is a problem with it, however. It isn't true. For one thing, Douglass never suffered from paralysis as a child as he claimed in the book. He sufferred from re-occuring intestinal colic. He also stated that he lived in poverty with his mother. As it turns out, his mother was typically middle-class. He claimed to have graduated second in his class from law school. Again, a lie.
   
   Apparently, discerning the reasearch I have done on Douglas, this book was politically motivated by a man who wished to paint himself as wholesome as possible in order to obtain his life's ambition - the White House. Studying more on this man is revealing. He left his wife of 28 years for a series of younger women. He left his third wife for a high school student. 24 months later he married a college student that he met waitressing at a cocktail bar. His own children thought him "scary" who only spoke to them when "press photographers wanted a picture." There is also a controversy about his military service - if he ever did actually serve, and if he deserves to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery (where he is buried.)
   
   The book itself, as I said, is a delightful read. If it were true, I would give it five stars without blinking an eye. Read and enjoy this piece of masterful, self-revisionist fiction.

4 comments about John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court (Southern Biography Series).

1. Newmyer does a masterful work with his book `John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court'. This is more that just a standard history of John Marshall. Newmyer focuses on the legal nuances of Marshall's opinions and also the complexity of his mature jurisprudence during the development of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was then and is still today overshadowed more by Marshall than any other Justice. Marshall was the conservative nationalist who envisioned a theory of "Cooperative Federalism" between the States and the Federal Courts. He felt that the Constitution was not a code of laws but a written document that declared itself to be the supreme law of the land. He sought to keep constitutional questions, of a legal nature, the exclusive right of the Supreme Court and not left up to the States and the political parties of the day. This placed him at odds with Jefferson and would result in a decade long battle to make constitutional interpretation the business of lawyers and judges not politicians. Marshall feared localized states representative's potential abuse of power. He considered the Union to be in danger from states interpreting the Constitution with all their associated cultural localisms. Newmyer unfolds Marshall belief that "the states constitute parts of the Union; they are members of one great empire, sometimes sovereign, sometimes subordinate". His vision was to make the court a legal institution guided by legal interpretation and avoid politics. Combining this with fair-minded judges aided by time-tested rules of interpretation, to ascertain the meaning of constitutional language, would resolve every major national or states issue. Marshall's Supreme Court constitutional interpretation monopoly was not to be. Times and doctrines were to change or even evaporate away removing the Court from the center of government and placing it, not ahead, but competing along side the other government branches. Jefferson/Jacksonian democracy would prevail over Marshall's conservatism. However Marshall's stamp on American law would be forever made as well as his help in laying the foundation for the sound establishment of the Constitution.
   
   There is a lot to digest and consider in the book. Newmyer expects readers to start this book with a good base knowledge of the Constitution and other documents like the Judicial Act of 1789 etc. This was one area where I felt the footnotes could have helped and covered better. Newmyer does a great job in weaving Marshall's common sense straight-forward personality into this study. From judicial review down through contracts law, a picture of Marshall emerges. Here is the Federalist Statesman, Common-law Lawyer, Revolutionary Soldier, Lawyer-legislator, Ratifier of the Constitution and Virginia's son. Well worth reading and adding to the history shelf.



2. Maybe I'm getting spoiled with the recent output of historical profiles that have the narrative quality of great fiction, like Caro's LBJ series, Chernow on Hamilton, and McCullough's books on our founding. Given that high bar, Newmyer's history of Marshall is a very difficult read.
   
   This book plods along. When discussing a principle the court dealt with Newmyer often makes it impossible to keep track of what year or even decade he's referring to, making it difficult to put the principles discussed into the proper context, especially political context. I also felt the book was very biased, glorifying his conservative nationalism without really defining why his brand of nationalism should be considered conservative rather than liberal or even non-ideological.
   
   This book would prove helpful in a Constitutional Law class discussing certain principles and their historical development, especially the rise of Corporations, but only with the guidance of a Professor who knows the era and Marshall's court well and only in small doses. I'm a sucker for books about our founding ideals and the history of our framers, but this was torture and with no obligation to finish this book, I finally gave up about ¾ of the way through, which I rarely do.



3. John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court written by R. Kent Newmyer is a biography about the fourth Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Marshall. This is not just an ordinary biography, but a biography with feeling, deep understanding andcomprehensive knowledge of Marshall.

   This book is, by far, the most extraordinary biography, and paints a portrait of Chief Justice Marshall, the man, with perception and details , at the same time the author does an exhaustive biography of the jurisprudence of the Marshall Court.

   John Marshall, (1801-1835) was appointed to the Supreme Court by John Adams as he was leaving office. A last minute appointment and second cousin to Thomas Jefferson, Marshall served in some of the most formative years that the has ever seen. Marshall wanted to bring the court into the central picture of the government and reigned in the court from the fringes of government, Consolidating the authority of the court making the Supreme Court the final arbitor when it came to constitutional.

   John Marshall was a man equal to Jefferson when it came to the challenges of office and was equally skilled at the crafting law that supported the emerging American market economy. It was Jefferson and Marshall, however who symbolized and personalized the competing constitutional persuasions of the age and brought them into explosive focus. Each had taken a stand on the great foreign and domestic issues of the 1790's; each had conflated those issues into a dispute over the meaning of the Constitution. When fate and ambition made Jefferson president and Marshall chief justice, the institutional stage was set for what is one of the most creative confrontations in American constitutional history. At stake was not just the position of the Supreme Court in American government but the place of law in republican culture.

   Can you imagine being there when Marshall was giving the oath of office to Jefferson... when the new chief justice administered the oath of office to the new president on March 4, 1801. With his hand on the Bible held by Marshall, Jefferson swore to uphold the Constitution, Marshall was sure sure he was about to destroy.

   This book has an engaging narrative and you seem to read the information quickly and with ease, the author's prose is extremely well-written. As for the historical information it is spot-on even the court cases are found on a listing in the back of the book. Marshall was more than a chief justice, he was priciple in the forming a United States. Marshall's institutional accomplishments are found in this impressive study. For a one volume book... this is the most comprehensive... Marshall was the most representative figure in American law. This book is well worth the money ans should be in the library of all who study American History.




4. John Marshall, our nation's fourth Chief Justice, served from 1801 until 1835. He was appointed by President John Adams in one of the last and most significant acts of his administration.

   Professor Kent Newmyer has written a comprehensive account of the great Chief Justice's career. The account is admirably researched and documented, drawing extensively on a new edition of Marshall's papers. It includes careful analyses of Marshall's leading opinions. Most importantly, Professor Newmyer gives a thoughtful discussion of Justice Marshall's place on the Court and on the importance of his vision of the United States for our history.

   The book includes a good discussion of Marshall's role in the Revolutionary War, as a successful lawyer in Virginia, and as a landowner and extensive land speculator. But most of the book consists of a discussion of Marshall's career on the Court, his opinions, and the manner in which he shaped the Court as an institution.

   While Newmyer admires his subject greatly, I found this a very balanced account. He allows that Justice Marshall did not always meet his own stated goals of separating law from politics and notes how Marshall's activities as a land speculator seemed to play a critical role in several of his leading opinions.

   The discussion begins with Marbury v Madison and its role in the doctrine of judicial review. It continues with a thorough discussion of Marshall's role in the treason trial of Aaron Burr, through a discussion of the great opinions construing the Commerce Clause and Contracts Clause of the Constitution, through the Cherokee Nation opinions that Marshall wrote near the end of his tenure which established the foundation of American Indian Law. (Professor Newmyer considers these decisions Justice Marshall's proudest moment.)

   The book considers Marshall's attitudes towards and opinions dealing with slavery. There is also a discussion of a series of polemical articles Justice Marshall exchanged with critics following the decision in McCollough v Maryland. Marshall's critics feared that he was giving too expansive a power to the National Government as opposed to the States. In fact, at the end of his career, Justice Marshall feared his life work had been overtaken by events with the rise of the democracy, a strong state rights movement, and the Presidency of Andrew Jackson.

   Professor Newmyer sees Justice Marshall as a Burkean conservative in a new world. Marshall interpreted the Constitution broadly, yet flexibility to allow the development of individual, and national commerce and enterprise. Yet he was devoted to institutions and strongly inclined to accept the world as he found it rather than make it over in accordance with abstract principles (as he accused the supporters of the French Revolution of doing.) Newmyer writes:

   Marshall spoke as a Burkean conservative, or as much of one as American circumstances allowed. He was repelled by reductionist abstractions as well as abstract idealims, even when it was couched, as was much of southern constitutionalism in terms of a mythical past. He worked from the 'given', accepted the world as it was, relished 'the disorder of experience" to borrow a phrase from Charles Rosen." (p.351)

   Justice Marshall was not an original thinker, but he took the text of the Constitution, together with the Federalist, and molded it and the Court's interpretive role in a way that is with us today. He remains America's great Chief Justice. There is much for the interested reader to learn and to think through in Professor Newmyer's fine study of Justice Marshall.

5 comments about The Wrong Man: A True Story of Innocence on Death Row.

1. I am myself a law student, and very interested in anti-death penalty work. Reading this book, however, is unlikely to convince anyone of the wrongness of the death penalty and very likely to convince the average reader that anti-death penalty advocates are unbalanced and as "crazy" and "guilty" as those they represent.
   Was Joe Spaziano guilty as charged? Probably not.
   Is Michael Mello one of the most repulsive lawyers in America? That's putting it mildly.
   I do not wish to launch an ad homimen attack on the author, but when the "hominem" in question inserts himself into the book as much as Mello does, it seems fair to comment on him. I have no problem with his anti-death penalty bias, and he does document ample reasons why Spaziano may well have been innocent. (I would say he stops short of the burden of proof, however.) But Mello is easily the most disgusting character in this book. He launches into long descriptions of his substance abuse, for instance--which he never disclosed to his client, saying only that he had to be "hospitalized" when he was sent away for over a month of rehab at his employer's expense. He seems to think the reader will be fascinated by his various failed relationships. Although he goes into great detail about his supposedly fairy-tale marriage to "Deanna" ("first and last marriage for us both"--I'll bet)he forgets his first "wife," Ruthanne. Coincidentally, this woman is the mother of his child, who is never mentioned again after the two of them break up. (Poor Larkin!) And let's not forget that Deanna was his student at Vermont Law, although he takes pains to say that she was on a leave of absence when they began dating. I certainly hope he doesn't teach legal ethics at Vermont.
   There's also the long side trips discussing how undisciplined he is with his personal finances, details of his battles with the Vermont Law dean (in his paranoid style, he claims they wanted to revoke his tenure--I wouldn't have blamed them a bit), and his equally paranoid-fueled rants against Spaziano's other attorneys and a newspaper which had taken up Spaziano's cause. It's easy to see why so many people believed in Spaziano's guilt: With Mello fighting his battles, doubtless the opposing side was inclined to think the worst. I was singularly unimpressed by the "petition" signed by various celebrities, many of whom were also passionate believers in Mumia Abu-Jamal's (Wesley Cook's) innocence. I am from Philadelphia, and while I am staunchly anti-death penalty, one must either be delusional or ignorant of the facts to believe in Jamal's innocence. Being against the death penalty does not mean one must believe in the factual innocence of every defendant.
   Yet none of these personal failings are nearly as telling as the fact that Mello just doesn't seem to be a terribly competent attorney. His official legal writings (those we see) are poorly written and filled with invective. His oral arguments are even worse--I've seen more professional presentations in Moot Court. Spaziano chose to take a no-contest plea which ensures he will spend the rest of his life in prison--way to go, Mello!
   All told, this is a story of a man--the lawyer, not the criminal--who turned everyone against himself and his cause, doing his client a huge disservice. He probably should have been disbarred, as he feared at one point he would be. Much like the film "The Life of David Gale," this is anti-death penalty propaganda which makes the activists look even sicker than the over-zealous cops and prosecuters who often pervert the process. A far better examination of a death penalty case which was reversed (and the client freed) is William Costopoulous' "Principal Suspect," about the Jay Smith case in Pennsylvania. Costopoulous is an excellent writer and extremely professional, gifted attorney--a further opposite from Mello is impossible to find. Also excellent is Mark Fuhrman's recent "Death and Justice," which describes how Fuhrman, once a death penalty advocate, changed his mind. Don't waste your time with the pitiful, sad, and seemingly delusional Mr. Mello.



2. I agree with half of the other reviews: the author is ego-centric and self-righteous in his bent and erroneous position. The zealousness at which he seems to embrace Joseph Spaziano's innocense is nothing less than mind boggling. Therefore one must question whether his agenda is to prove this person, Joe "Crazy Joe" Spaziano, as an innocent victim or is it more accurate to conclude that the author is fervent in his quest only to prove himself correct.
   
   If you have a heart towards assisting the truly innocent and often overlook victims, your valuable time would be greater served elsewhere. Find some worthwhile publications that can help you minister to the truly needy instead of spending money to promote such outlandish writings.



3. 
   
   
   Jerry Layne Rogers, Sr. -- wrongfully convicted and innocent. From 1989 - 1992, I was his investigator at CCR.
   
   Mr. Rogers' case consisted in 1992 of at least 80 boxes of documents, from court files, prosecutor and law enforcement files, trial and evidentiary hearing transcripts, etc. Mr. Rogers's case was the largest and most complicated that CCR [The Office of Capital Collateral Representative -- a state agency in the judicial branch of Florida government] has ever represented that I am aware of.
   
   The second largest and most complicated was that of Mr. Gerald Stano, whose lead attorney during most of the development of his case was Mark E. Olive.
   
   In 1995, Mr. Rogers began receiving pro bono representation from the Washington, D.C. law firm Covington and Burling. The result was an unanimous Florida Supreme Court (FSC) 26 page opinion ordering a new trial in Mr. Rogers' case due primarily to prosecutorial misconduct, in particular Brady v. Maryland violations.
   
   To read the opinion, go to the FSC website, then at "Public Information", to the recent opinions, to the year 2001, then toward the bottom at February 15, 2001, one will find the FSC opinion.
   
   During the summer of 2002, Mr. Rogers was re-convicted, however sentenced to life upon the jury recommendation. Now twice Mr. Rogers has been wrongfully convicted.
   
   In 2004, the Florida 5th District Court of Appeal denied relief. The FSC declined to accept jurisdiction and thus denied the petition for review.
   
   Mr. Rogers' case is pending Federal review.
   
   
   
   
   For those interested in reading the narrowly decided by four to three vote Florida Supreme Court opinions regarding two more death sentenced persons whose innocence is an authentic issue, please go to the FSC website, then go to the recent opinions, then chose the correct year and scroll down to the following two cases:
   
   Roy Swafford: April 18, 2002
   
   Peter Ventura: May 24, 2001
   
   
   Additionally, the issue in the below cases is DNA testing that proves that Roy Swafford did not rape Brenda Rucker:
   
   Roy Swafford: March 26, 2004 Case Nos. SC03.931 and SC03.1153



4. This book is coming from a positon of proving capital punishment unjust because *innocent* people are wrongly punished. BUT...what if Spaziano is GUILTY ??? Does that then make the authors argument null and void ?

   Interestingly enough, I oppose the Death Penalty because of my strong scriptually based spiritual beliefs. But I DO agree with punishment for crimes committed....and Joe Spaziano is as guilty as they come. I met him personally and just prior to his murder of an innocent young girl, when he was still self proclaiming himself as *Crazy Joe*...and justifiably so.

   Where are the droves of testimony from the woman, one of my closest friends at the time of the murder, who innocently went for a ride with her then boyfriend Spaziano and his cohort,DiLisio, while never realizing that they were heading for the Florida Seminole County dump to discard of Spaziano's lifeless victim's body ??? Where are the droves of documented commentary from questioning this key eye witness about when parked at the dump that night, Joe Spaziano told his then girlfriend that if she dared to turn around and look at what they were doing...that he would KILL her ??? But she DID turn around...and she knew what she saw...and she went into Wintness Protection in order for the TRUTH to be told...and voluntarily became yet another innocent victim, but this one sentenced to a life of hiding and fear because of threats for retribution from the unjailed *Outlaw* motorcycle gang which *Crazy Joe* Spaziano belonged to.

   Details, details, details of Joe Spaziano's guilt are so undeniably missing that it is no wonder *READERS* would easily be led down the path of thinking this heinous killer is innocent rather than guilty for what he indeed did do !!!

   Using THIS CASE to make the authors cry for unjustice against *the innocent* concerning capital punishment is...TOTALLY ABSURB and even HARMFUL.

   The author appears to have written this book from one other perspective...that of making a lot of money from the sales of his book. The key eye witness, Joe Spaziano's then girlfriend, testified for only ONE reason...so that the truth would be known and justice would be fulfilled. She never wrote a book about her story with this crazy man...one that has many, many, many more filthy and demeaning details of the unspeakable acts Spaziano and other Outlaw bikers did to their rival motorcycle gangs as well as other innocent people or even their very own members if that member did not comply to their *rules*.

   Think about it...surely you, the reader of this book, must conclude that you're being fleeced.




5. TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) - Joseph "Crazy Joe" Spaziano, who avoided Florida's electric chair six years ago when his condemnation for murder was thrown out, was denied parole Wednesday on a sentence of life plus five years for raping a 16-year-old Orlando girl and slashing her eyes in 1974.

   The state Parole Commission voted against changing Spaziano's April 2060 parole date on the rape conviction after a 40-minute hearing Wednesday when family members and attorneys on both sides testified in the case of the one-time member of the Outlaws motorcycle gang.

   Spaziano, now 58, will be eligible to seek another parole hearing in 2009.

No comments about Watergate Prosecutor.

No comments about Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of Entertainment.