Jack summons Rob Jacobson (Robbie to friends, family and colleagues), a friend of himself and his wife, Jess, since they were at Briar Country Day school in Brooklyn. He expects Robbie to represent him and is shocked when Robbie says he is “not the right guy to defend” Jack because he is too close to Jack and his family. Rob was also “close” to Amanda.
Jack desperately wants to keep secret his affair with Amanda. No past, present or future President could think the affair would not become known during the trial.
Despite his protestations, pro forma to me, Robbie takes on the defence. He has a self-deprecating manner I appreciated. He describes himself as a “balding, middle-aged Jewish lawyer”. He recognizes his vanity. He wants to represent the President of the United States on a charge of murder. He “craves the limelight”.
Robbie came from a dysfunctional family. His mother was bipolar. His father “managed his own spooled rage with a studded utility belt” until he was beaten to death on his way home from work. Robbie was a senior in high school when his father was killed.
Jack’s father, John Sherman “Sherm” Cutler Sr., was a hedge fund CEO and the family lived in a “stately brownstone”. Sherm was a mean man. Jack and Sherm had a volatile, even violent, relationship.
There are enigmatic chapters with a character talking to a psychiatrist. I struggled to determine who was seeing the psychiatrist.
Judge Edgerton is the trial judge. He is an experienced no-nonsense judge whose bushy eyebrows express to knowledgeable counsel his thoughts on an argument.
In the media frenzy surrounding arraignment Jack and Rob “navigated a river of photographers”.
Robbie calls upon his retired partner, Jane Cashman, to return to the courts to help defend Jack. A conservative black Republican, she hesitates to defend the Democratic ex-President but is wooed back. I was glad to see there was a defence team.
Robbie had graduated from Fordham night law school. After working as a Federal prosecutor for a few years he was interviewed by a prestigious Washington D.C. firm, Lockyear & Harbison, better known as L & H. Because he is a thoughtful reader able to discuss books with the decision making partner Robbie is hired.
The victim was a beautiful brilliant legal star at Robbie’s office. The affair between the young associate and the senior partner began while Robbie was still married. He rationalizes his infidelity.
Robbie meets with the prosecutorial team, a carefully curated group. Katherine Hannigan is lead prosecutor. Sam Parker, an African American, assists her. Gary Shapiro is the “law guy”.
Amanda, being 6 weeks pregnant at death, adds to the drama of the trial.
Surprises from the client are the bane of a criminal defence lawyer’s life. I would have loved to grab some clients by the lapels of a blazer, as Robbie did with Jack, to emphasize the need to be transparent with your lawyer, but there is no point beyond a brief moment of satisfaction.
Participating in the court of public opinion Rob has an entertaining interview with Ryan MacGregor, a flame throwing right winger (think Tucker Carlson).
The prosecution wants to admit evidence of Jack’s affairs. Jack’s co-counsel, Jane, argues agains the motion. Her oral argument was perfect. She points out a typo in her written argument and sits down.
The application does set the stage for a major trial issue. Will Jack testify? Rob wants him to go on the witness stand. He is known for his charm and seductive powers. The prosecutors would love to cross-examine him.
As with most accused, Jack would prefer to tell only part of the truth. Rob and Jane sternly clear up that misconception. His motive for partial concealment was a common concern. The whole truth would embarrass and tarnish him for life.
Jane reminds Rob they need an alternative killer to Jack. Robbie's close personal relationships challenge his objectivity on potential alternatives.
Lawyers are creatures of habit in court. Rob sucks peppermint Life Savers to restrain his “knuckle-biting habit” while Jane has “multicolored highlighters to mark arguments in order of their importance”.
I wondered why Jack, if the killer, would leave the body where it was bound to be found knowing there would be forensic evidence available from the body.
The trial gets immensely more complicated when a possible alternative killer is identified and Rob refuses to recognize the possiblity.
The trial moves quickly for a high profile murder case. Robbins approach is more like a T.V. show or movie in short focused excerpts of evidence.
I neither foresaw the ending of the trial nor the aftermath nor the final twist. It is hard to have a series of credible surprises at the end of a legal mystery but Robbins succeeded.
The pages flow easily. I was reminded of John Grisham. There is enough detail but not the minutiae of Scott Turow in Presumed Guilty. Robbins has written an excellent legal mystery.
****
My partner at our law office, Brandi Rintoul, gave me the book to read. I asked her if she would like to provide her own review of the book to posted on this blog. She accepted the challenge. Neither of us have seen the other's review. I will be putting up her review later this week. I am excited to learn her thoughts on the book.
This does sound well-written, Bill. And I can well imagine that it's just about every lawyer's dream to defend a head of state in a high-profile case like this one. The personal intrigue sounds interesting, too, and it strikes me that the characters seem fairly well developed. To me, that's always a plus. I'm intrigued to read your law partner's take on the novel.
ReplyDeleteMargot: Thanks for the comment. I agree it was well written, especially as I thought it was a first novel. I went to check Robbins writing career and was saddened to learn he had died of liver failure a month after the book was published. His wife said he started writing during the pandemic seeking to fulfill a long held ambition. She said he must have written 100 drafts. She was thankful he lived long enough to read a positive review of his book in the New York Times.
Delete