This book was a good read for a dreary return flight from DC. It falls short of the promise of its title. That said, every opening and closing statement in this book contained a valuable lesson for trial attorneys, and each statement makes a compelling read. I give this book 3 stars because it doesn't quite live up to its title. Perhaps "Some Really Cool Openings and Closings I liked" would've been a more appropriate title for the book.

With the rapid growth of sensationalist legal coverage on TV news and primetime courtroom drama a la "The Practice", it can be difficult to understand fully the merits of a good trial lawyer's rhetorical virtuoso aside from the twists, turns, and socio-political backdrop which typically capture Americans' attention. With few exceptions, (e.g. Scopes trial, O.J. Simpson trial) the lawyer, that civic advocate and protector of justice, rarely receives deserved recognition. We sit collectively on the edge of our seats with eyes and ears pealed for damning witness testimonies and blood-stained clothes. Evidence is rarely that clear, Seidemann informs us, and most real life cases turn on the efficacy of the lawyer. This book renews our appreciation for a profession derided so often for its dishonesty that we have forgotten the sad and dangerous implications behind the humor. Within these pages of heartwrenching tragedies and controversies that rocked our nation, you will surely reexperience memories of the incidents as the opening/closing statements verify or challenge what you believe. Seidemann reminds us that we have conferred upon lawyers the great responsibility of juridicial guardianship, in order to shake us out of complacency and reaffirm our right to demand their rectitude and loyalty to their oath.

For Generation Y and the Millenials, "In the Interest of Justice" should be required reading for the oft neglected legal aspect of cultural literacy. Direct accounts of the gruesome atrocities perpetuated by Adolph Eichmann and the SS, Johnny Cochran's convoluted deconstruction of the Simpson evidence, the Bernard Goetz incident, and the unmitigated hatred of Zacharias Moussaoui in his own words far exceed detached summaries of such pivotal moments in the American psyche. Though older generations have understood and internalized their meaning by living through these events, imperceptibly they seem to hold less and less power as time goes by and new leaders of society step up to the fore. Hopefully, this book will spur other writers to popularize equally important judicial landmarks with the same care to the preservation of the primary evidence and with similar astute and fair explanations. These are more than exciting cases and history lessons: Seidemann compels us to consider personally the merits and risks of the sometimes flawed but inviolable bedrock of American freedom and security: its criminal justice system.

In the Interest of Justice is a great book.

I just spent 4 hours on a delayed flight. I am glad I had the book with me. It is a very interesting book, especially for non-lawyers.

One thing that caught my eye is the different ways Jay Goldberg was able to change approaches from that of humor in they Bess Meyerson case to biting summation in a case involving Sammy "The Bull" Gravano. It seems to me few lawyers (if any) are able to recognize that according to Mark Twain "a laughing jury seldom convicts". But then again, you have to have inborn capacity to switch approaches that would result in laughing a case out of court and then approaching another case with complete hostility to an adversaries witness. My kudos go to the author as well as to Mr. Goldberg.

Seidemann has chosen excerpts of opening and closing arguments from some of the most important and famous cases of the last century. But thecases were not chosen merely because they are famous; the arguments are often extremely eloquent and moving. Reading these lawyers' arguments trying sway the jury conveys more emotion and makes these cases more immediate and real than any documentary could. It gives a sense of what it must have been like to be in the jury box deciding these cases.

It is interesting to see the different styles the lawyers use. The prosecutors' somber, reverential tone in his opening argument in the trial against Adolph Eichmann contrasts sharply with Gerry Spence's homespun approach in his summation in the Karen Silkwood case, but both lawyers seem to hit the perfect note.

In his commentary, Seidemann, a prosecutor in Manhattan, sets the stage for each case and highlights the strategies and techniques employed. His explanations provide an excellent insight into the lawyer's craft. Surprisingly, this book reads like a novel, but it also provides a unique opportunity to get inside the courtroom and learn 20th century history through these cases.