Simon, charged with murder, is innocent but who was the killer? I have written often of the implausibility of the mysterious stranger as killer defence. Simon and his lawyer need to find the anonymous tipster and the killer or at least a credible alternative.
Simon spends nights working on his defence in Lassiter’s law library.
Unfortunately, Lassiter, his junior Casey Noland and Simon are going with the theory of a mysterious stranger as the killer. Why a stranger would go through the complications and the risks of poisoning an elderly woman is not addressed. They will rely on the presumption of innocence that the Commonwealth of Virginia has to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a perilous defence.
The court will hear that Jerry Korsak and Wally visited Netty. He can mention in argument that there were many hospital staff in and out of Netty’s room. None of them resonate as murderers.
As with many lawyers, including myself, Lassiter says at court, just before the trial begins, that it is “showtime”.
Grisham presents the trial evidence briskly with some nice cross-examination by Lassiter.
There is nary a surprise in the evidence which is unusual in real life and fictional trials.
Should Simon testify?
Is a lawyer automatically looked down upon as not a reliable witness?
Is there evidence Simon could provide that has not already been presented?
Would Simon simply be denying killing Netty and asking the jury to believe him?
Initially I thought he should not testify but eventually reached the conclusion he should testify. With the mysterious stranger defence I think the defendant needs to give the jury reason to conclude he was not the killer and a mysterious stranger is believable.
You will need to read the book to see if Simon went on the witness stand.
If he does not testify the jury will have to decide the case on circumstantial evidence.
In Canada the test for conviction when the evidence is circumstantial is whether the only reasonable conclusion from the proven facts is guilt.
Grisham has always had credible trials. However, I consider there was a major flaw in this trial. I would be willing to exchange emails with readers of the book who would like to know the flaw.
The flaw diminished my enjoyment of the book. I do not think more drama was added to the book. It did make the legal issues simpler. Grisham had to have been aware that what he wrote was not plausible. As always, I appreciate authorial licence but Grisham has the skill as author and lawyer to be dramatic by being logical.
The ending is credible.
In the book Grisham’s lawyers have differing personalities. Wally is sleazy and very willing to breach professional conduct rules. Simon is hard working but willing to put himself in position to reap large sums from the administration of Netty’s estate. (Not covered in the book is that the alternative to Simon being executor would be a trust company as executor. Simon’s fees would be no higher than those of a trust company.) Prosecutor Cora Cook is aggressive and ethical with a sense of style in her clothing. Lassiter is hard charging with a big personality and fine suits and silk ties. Teddy Hammer’s aggressive advocacy for the stepsons skews impressions. Another, who must be nameless to prevent a spoiler, endangers the public to gain a huge fee though I think he would have gotten just as much money by taking a morally correct action. An unnamed team of lawyers equally endanger the public over the same matter. Confusing a lawyer with a client is an occupational hazard for all lawyers.
The book was compelling. I read it quickly.
As a lawyer, the book left me uncomfortable with the willingness of too many lawyers in the book to act unethically. Greed led them to stray. Our profession requires more from lawyers than not breaking the law. Acting ethically is important.
****
No comments:
Post a Comment