Walsh certainly comes up with an interesting topic that has been bypassed by other historians. The case involves Duff Anderson and his use of a deadly weapon in killing a large man. Because of his friendship with the family, Abe Lincoln defended Duff in court and got him acquited of the charge of murder. In the trial itself, Abe may have used an incorrect almanac, and this was not challenged by the prosecution. Because of this, a guilty man may have went free. Walsh also questions other Lincoln cases in the book. This is all interesting reading, even though unproven.
I give the author credit in writing about a topic that has not been explored in great detail. He writes this as history, but there is not enough evidence here to convict Lincoln. Lincoln used the full extent of his powers to defend his client. At this stage, there is not enough documentation to prove he doctored the almanac. This is a quick short interesting read.

This is nearly a very good book. Walsh has done credible research and his bibliography is helpful. He clarifys the issues in the almanac trial and provides a picture of Lincoln at work as a defense attorney as few have. BUT.. In his introduction Walsh says, "no fictional coloring has been added" and eveything "rests squarely on documented sources." If only that were so. The tone of the book is like an over-ripe romance novel. I counted two !s and five usues of italics for emphasis in the introduction alone. He virtually admits he can not prove any of his more florid conclusions. A defense attorney is not on a quest for the truth. He or she need only make the prosecution's case look uncertain, which is what Lincoln did. Walsh states that Lincoln could not help the man convicted of killing Metzer, "without endangering Duff [Lincoln's client.]"
Duff had already been aquitted. He could not have been tried for the same crime twice. It is a shame that with all the good work he did Walsh did not present the case in a factual matter. he could have raised very interesting ethical questions about the role of a defense attorney with a very probably guilty client. He did not.