Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury: Greatest Closing Arguments in Modern Law 
asked by geo on November 18, 2006 3:46 AM
Anyone who's ever watched Perry Mason knows that the closing argument is a very important part of a big legal case. The closing argument is the "game point" of law, the time when lawyers pull out all the stops on the cajoling and the litigating. Michael S. Lief and his coauthors have collected the closing arguments from 10 noteworthy cases in this volume, introducing each speech with background information on the trial and commentary on the lawyer's technique. In these pages, readers get front-row seats to some of the most riveting trials in this century, including the Charles Manson murder trial, Karen Silkwood's wrongful-death suit, and the trial of the Chicago Seven.
Because the authors chose to include all the courtroom interruptions in the transcript, the Manson summation makes for especially lively reading. Manson and his codefendants repeatedly spoke out of turn during prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's statement, saying things like "You are going to be eaten up by your own lie" and "Even if I have never been in the Gotham Bank!" Bugliosi's speech is among the most eloquent in the collection, which is why it is so stunning when one of the defendants provokes him so much that he loses his cool and calls her a name that rhymes with rich.
Although the title promises the "greatest closing arguments in modern law," some of the speeches seem to have been chosen because they were connected to important cases rather than because of their own rhetorical merits. However, the cases themselves are interesting, and these transcripts bring them to life better than any summary would. This collection should be of interest to anyone in the legal profession. --Jill Marquis
Reviews
0%
0%
The authors claim that these "greatest closing arguments in modern law" were chosen for the "quality of [their] summation, as well as for [their] historical significance." The immediate question is who is judging the quality of the summation and, more importantly, their historical significance?
The view here is obviously that left-wing causes have the most historical significance, though some cases, such as Nuremburg, are politically neutral. Clarence Darrow's summation in behalf of two young men who brutally murdered another is an argument against the death penalty. Many would consider the resulting verdict an injustice, compounded by early release of one of the murderers. Also, the fact that the case was argued in a Cook County, Illinois courtroom, one of the most corrupt jurisdictions in the nation, casts the power of this closing argument into doubt since the parents of the murderers were wealthy and in Cook County, money has always spoken loudly even when passed in silence from one hand to another.
Gerry Spence is without a doubt one of the most eloquent and effective litigators in the nation. But the science his Silkwood argument rests upon is, to some, suspect as were the alleged facts.
The closing arguments are presented with a wrapping of context, though it is a bit on the light side. With that in mind, the closing defense argument in the John DeLorean case is truly great, cataloging a series of government misdeeds. But the reader searching for political balance may be troubled by equally meritorious closing arguments in the Rosenberg and Alger Hiss cases.
Vincent Bugliosi's closing in the case against Manson and his followers is competent, but isn't great. It is a narrative that virtually any competent prosecutor could have put together. The Manson case involved celebrities, but otherwise wasn't much different than many murder cases of the same nature: groups of people motivated to murder. Johnny Cochran's closing in the O. J. Simpson case was far more powerful, in my opinion, far outclassing Bugliosi in persuasiveness.
The inclusion of Robert Jackson's closing at Nuremberg is puzzling. It was not an American trial. The guilt of the accused was beyond doubt, though law underpinning the tribunal was not. From the commentary, I derived the feeling that the authors were trying to rescue Jackson's reputation from his disastrous cross examination of Hermann Goering.
William Kunstler, in the opinion of many, was a living insult to the practice of law. The authors describe his closing in the Chicago Seven case as a "four-part clinic in how to excel in persuasive argument." Others might see it and Kunstler's behavior in a circus presentation of how to flout the law. All of Kunstler's clients were convicted: so much for the persuasiveness of his argument. The convictions were overturned owing to the trial judge's behavior. Again, this was in Cook County, Illinois where for many years both the state and federal judiciaries were of abysmal quality, products for the most part of the Democratic political machine. (Many of the "murderers" convicted under the current Chicago Mayor, Richard M. Daley, had their convictions overturned because DNA testing became available. At least one Cook County judge accepted bribes to free a murderer. Great place.)
The authors note that it is probably "terribly presumptuous" of them to choose the ten greatest arguments - and they are correct. They admit to choosing only "noteworthy" trials . . . and it is there that they blinded themselves to a far wider range of great closing arguments.
All the arguments are interesting and all the lawyers who made them were clearly eloquent, so more so than others. But to call these ten the greatest in modern law? I think not.
Jerry
The view here is obviously that left-wing causes have the most historical significance, though some cases, such as Nuremburg, are politically neutral. Clarence Darrow's summation in behalf of two young men who brutally murdered another is an argument against the death penalty. Many would consider the resulting verdict an injustice, compounded by early release of one of the murderers. Also, the fact that the case was argued in a Cook County, Illinois courtroom, one of the most corrupt jurisdictions in the nation, casts the power of this closing argument into doubt since the parents of the murderers were wealthy and in Cook County, money has always spoken loudly even when passed in silence from one hand to another.
Gerry Spence is without a doubt one of the most eloquent and effective litigators in the nation. But the science his Silkwood argument rests upon is, to some, suspect as were the alleged facts.
The closing arguments are presented with a wrapping of context, though it is a bit on the light side. With that in mind, the closing defense argument in the John DeLorean case is truly great, cataloging a series of government misdeeds. But the reader searching for political balance may be troubled by equally meritorious closing arguments in the Rosenberg and Alger Hiss cases.
Vincent Bugliosi's closing in the case against Manson and his followers is competent, but isn't great. It is a narrative that virtually any competent prosecutor could have put together. The Manson case involved celebrities, but otherwise wasn't much different than many murder cases of the same nature: groups of people motivated to murder. Johnny Cochran's closing in the O. J. Simpson case was far more powerful, in my opinion, far outclassing Bugliosi in persuasiveness.
The inclusion of Robert Jackson's closing at Nuremberg is puzzling. It was not an American trial. The guilt of the accused was beyond doubt, though law underpinning the tribunal was not. From the commentary, I derived the feeling that the authors were trying to rescue Jackson's reputation from his disastrous cross examination of Hermann Goering.
William Kunstler, in the opinion of many, was a living insult to the practice of law. The authors describe his closing in the Chicago Seven case as a "four-part clinic in how to excel in persuasive argument." Others might see it and Kunstler's behavior in a circus presentation of how to flout the law. All of Kunstler's clients were convicted: so much for the persuasiveness of his argument. The convictions were overturned owing to the trial judge's behavior. Again, this was in Cook County, Illinois where for many years both the state and federal judiciaries were of abysmal quality, products for the most part of the Democratic political machine. (Many of the "murderers" convicted under the current Chicago Mayor, Richard M. Daley, had their convictions overturned because DNA testing became available. At least one Cook County judge accepted bribes to free a murderer. Great place.)
The authors note that it is probably "terribly presumptuous" of them to choose the ten greatest arguments - and they are correct. They admit to choosing only "noteworthy" trials . . . and it is there that they blinded themselves to a far wider range of great closing arguments.
All the arguments are interesting and all the lawyers who made them were clearly eloquent, so more so than others. But to call these ten the greatest in modern law? I think not.
Jerry
reviewed by stix on November 19, 2006 12:58 AM
0%
0%
After years of arguing caseslaw, motions, picking juries, interviewing witnesses, going through all the day to day protocol that trial work demands, one may forget at times how important is the job of a lawyer. But this book reminds the practioner that he/she is a part of a wonderful system of justice. Not many cases will go down as "The Greatest" but to your clients, it is often the defining moment of their lives. And this book helps you reconnect to the reasons why you sought a lifetime devoted to the noblest of professions.
Reading about the great lawyers of in our history is humbling and worthwhile. Reflection is helpful as you try to regain a little lost idealism. And if you are a new lawyer and have all of you ideals from law school still in tact, reading this book will help you realize how important it is to never lose them. Great book for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
Reading about the great lawyers of in our history is humbling and worthwhile. Reflection is helpful as you try to regain a little lost idealism. And if you are a new lawyer and have all of you ideals from law school still in tact, reading this book will help you realize how important it is to never lose them. Great book for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
reviewed by runningscared on November 19, 2006 3:35 PM