About Me

My photo
Melfort, Saskatchewan, Canada
I am a lawyer in Melfort, Saskatchewan, Canada who enjoys reading, especially mysteries. Since 2000 I have been writing personal book reviews. This blog includes my reviews, information on and interviews with authors and descriptions of mystery bookstores I have visited. I strive to review all Saskatchewan mysteries. Other Canadian mysteries are listed under the Rest of Canada. As a lawyer I am always interested in legal mysteries. I have a separate page for legal mysteries. Occasionally my reviews of legal mysteries comment on the legal reality of the mystery. You can follow the progression of my favourite authors with up to 15 reviews. Each year I select my favourites in "Bill's Best of ----". As well as current reviews I am posting reviews from 2000 to 2011. Below my most recent couple of posts are the posts of Saskatchewan mysteries I have reviewed alphabetically by author. If you only want a sentence or two description of the book and my recommendation when deciding whether to read the book look at the bold portion of the review. If you would like to email me the link to my email is on the profile page.

Tuesday, June 9, 2020

The Last Trial by Scott Turow Closing

In my previous two posts I have been discussing The Last Trial by Scott Turow. (Links are at the end of this post.) It is a great book. This post deals with the end of the trial and more of my reflections from over four decades as a litigator.
After the prosecution rests the accused, Kiril, must decide if he will testify in the trial. It is his right. Defence counsel cannot keep him off the stand. As with many strong willed and accomplished accused Kiril wants the jury to see he is not the man portrayed by the prosecution. As I expected, Stern and Marta tell him directly and forcefully not to testify. Will he, a Nobel Prize winner, accustomed for decades to doing what he wants accept their advice? (I was reminded of an important Saskatchewan case in which Colin Thatcher, a former Provincial Cabinet Minister and the son of a former Premier, was on trial charged with murdering his wife. Against the advice of his trial lawyer he insisted on testifying and was convicted. In his book, Last Appeal, Thatcher said
Because of my legislative experience, I believed any jury would demand they hear me say, “I didn’t do it.” Choosing not to testify was a luxury I did not believe I had.
His hubris doomed him for he was savaged on cross-examination. I wrote a series of posts on the book which can be found by looking on my non-fiction page.)

Stern spends much of the day before he will give the closing argument thinking about his life and what he will say to the jury. (While I try to have the closing drafted before the trial it is inevitable that unexpected statements, the way in which certain evidence was given, the impression created by witnesses means my closing arguments have often changed during the trial and are not completed until sometime during the night before being delivered.)

Stern’s closing address is beautiful. It is eloquent. It is moving. He presents clearly the positions of the accused. He hammers home the dishonesty of a pivotal witness. (I once described a key witness for the Crown in a closing argument as follows:

She has practiced deceit for a long long time.  She has deceived people for years.  I submit she tried to deceive you.

I am not sure she knows how to tell the truth.

She has told so many stories trying to conceal or deny what happened.  Finally at this trial the truth has come out.

The number of witnesses does not prove a case but equally you are entitled to consider what evidence was called that supported what she said happened.

She was the only Crown witness on the events. She was contradicted by her husband, her children, her sisters-in-law, her friend, her employer and her sister. Who came forward to support and confirm her evidence? No one because there was no one.  Not even herself.  She contradicted herself throughout her evidence.

I ask you to find my client not guilty of all the charges.

Stern sets out the alternative to Kiril. Every flaw in the State’s case is exposed.

Yet beneath the eloquence are troubling facts for Kiril. (I was not sure what the jury would do with the case.)

There is a twist I had not seen coming that was completely plausible for a narcissist like Kiril.

Stern reminds me of Atticus Finch. Both are lawyers of great substance but not flamboyance. Their presence and manner inspire confidence in clients. (Facing a trial is a dark time for the accused. I advise clients we are doing our best for them and will put our record of success against any firm. Many need such reassurance.)

It is not a Hollywood ending. It is a Stern ending. He has loved and respected the law for almost six decades.  He has been a character in Turow’s books for over 35 years. I am sad to see his career end. I am glad there was a great last case for him. (When I reach the end as a lawyer, a time that is sometime in the future, I hope I can be as graceful as Stern.)
The Last Trial - Opening and Mid-Trial


  1. Thanks, Bill, for sharing your insights as you've discussed this book. I think the question of whether to testify or not is a fascinating one, and I can certainly see why counsel would advise strongly against it. Yet, if I were accused of a crime, i'd want to speak on my own behalf, too, I think, so I can see where that comes from as well. I'm sad to see Sandy Stern's career end, too, although it makes sense in terms of the Kindle County books. I'm very glad you thought this was such an excellent book, and it was fascinating to read your reviews in the light of your own background.

    1. Margot: Thanks for the comment. Most of the time I think the defendant should testify at a jury trial. However, there are cases where the accused convict themselves. Turow is a great writer.

  2. I much enjoyed how you inserted episodes from and reflections on your own practice into the discussion of this book.

    1. Christophe: Thanks for the comment. I try to do something different now and again with reviews.

  3. Very good discussion. I hope to get a copy of this book and read it. I have read Presumed Innocent and Presumed Guilty and another book.

    I thought most defense attorneys don't want their clients to testify because they could be tripped up by the prosecutor. This is knowledge I've gotten from legal mysteries.

    1. Kathy D.: Thanks for the comment. Be ready to stay up once you start reading.

      In real life I generally think the defendant should testify in a jury trial but I am not dogmatic.

      Katie Couric's late sister, Emily, wrote a great book "Trial Lawyers" in which different defence counsel positively state the defendant should testify and the defendant should not testify. Here is a link to my review - https://mysteriesandmore.blogspot.com/2012/06/trial-lawyers-by-emily-couric.html

  4. A friend who is a Legal Aid lawyer doesn't think defendants should testify.

  5. Maybe I should get this book. I need good ones during this pandemic shutdown here.


  6. Kathy D.: Thanks for the comments. I hope you get to read the book.

    I wonder if your Legal Aid friend knows whether avoiding the calling of the defendant is common among Legal Aid lawyers across America.

  7. Well, he probably does know. Also, on TV legal dramas, that's always said, nnot to call defendants to testify.

  8. Kathy D.: I do not put much faith in the real life reality of American T.V. shows giving advice.