What do you think?
Rate this book
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to "white collar criminals," state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.
390 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 1, 2009
261 people are currently reading
2709 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 89 reviews
October 8, 2012
The message of this book needs to travel far & wide across this country, but I was disappointed in the actual execution of it. The book lacked scope; the author is based in Boston, and so this is where he draws most of his examples from, limiting the relevance it might have to people outside of New England. The book promised to highlight the accidental felonies committed by people from all walks of life, but he focused overwhelmingly on people in white collar professions. He had only a few, short examples of people from humbler backgrounds running afoul of the feds. It undermined his point that this could happen to basically anyone at any time. I know from my experience in the legal world that it can and does happen to non-white color folks, and it disappointed me that he didn't seem to do too much research into cases from the other side of the tracks.
Also, in general, this is the kind of book that will depress and alarm you. If you, like me, read books as a way of taking mini-vacations, then this won't be fun. Overall, though, I admire the message, and hope that other authors are able to come along to expand on what was started here.
Also, in general, this is the kind of book that will depress and alarm you. If you, like me, read books as a way of taking mini-vacations, then this won't be fun. Overall, though, I admire the message, and hope that other authors are able to come along to expand on what was started here.
January 9, 2013
A series of case studies by a civil liberties lawyer on the myriad ways federal prosecutors can indict and sometimes convict people based on seemingly normal conduct.
Silvergate highlights some important reasons why federal law is so elastic. One is that it lacks many of the "common law" protections of state law, and federal lawmakers and judges have taken this absence to construe laws as broadly as possible. Importantly, many among the now over 4,500 federal criminal statutes have given up any sense of the "mens rea," or guilty mind, assumptions that were once considered essential for making an action a criminal offense. Also, federal prosecutors have used strong sentencing guidelines and the ubiquity of plea bargains to coerce supposed defendants into testifying against the real targets of investigations, often more prominent individuals, who are often identified by officials as targets long before they are charged or even before evidence is compiled. Those under a corporate umberella are especially suspect. Since the 1999 Eric Holder memorandum and the 2003 Larry Thompson memorandum, the Department of Justice has threatened corporations with criminal charges unless they withdrew legal counsel, opened up papers supposedly held under "attorney-client privilege" and assisted the DOJ against its most important employees. After the Arthur Anderson debacle, corporations knew how deadly such a criminal charge could be, so they always agree to admit "guilt," and those mea culpas are then used against employees who otherwise might have had a fighting chance of staying out of prison.
Most of the prosecutions Silvergate discusses are based on broad "obstruction of justice" or "conspiracy" charges, which both can encompass almost any activity. As he points out, one odd aspect of federal law is that while lying under oath is a felony, perjury, lying to almost any federal official is also a felony, and thus many people get entrapped in long conferences with some federal lawyer into making some erroneous statement that end with them in prison. Think Martha Stewart went to jail for insider trading? Wrong, she went to jail for "obstruction of justice." The feds used ambiguous insider trading laws to trap her into saying things they believed contradicted her earlier statements. Think Arthur Anderson's charges were about accounting fraud? Actually they too were for "obstruction of justice," for telling employees to continue following their document retention and destruction policy BEFORE an indictment was issued. The documents destroyed COULD have been used in a prosecution after all. Almost as broad and useful to the feds are "fraud" charges, especially wire and mail fraud. Kenneth Lay of Enron was convicted not because of any specific statement he made that was proved false, but because general optimistic sentiments he conveyed to the press contradicted some internal concerns he had about the company. It looked then like any earnings ballyhoo by any executives might be a crime. More common than the Ken Lay or Martha Stewart types, though, are the prosecutions aimed at small-town politicians, doctors, or lawyers whose ethics may be questionable enough to anger some other officials even when they are not illegal. Generally the press, always eager for a new face for the outrage of the week, celebrates even the most "creative" of federal prosecutions.
So the author does a good job of showing how the feds target the innocent, but he also shows that in the end most prosecutions he mentions get reversed by appeals courts or struck down by juries, and one of the most troubling tactics he discusses, "honest services fraud," was struck down entirely by the Supreme Court in the 2010 Skilling v. US case. Of course, all this is cold comfort for those who spend years or even decades under indictment and have their lives ruined, but it does show that the system usually works, eventually. The problem is that indictment alone now provides such strong penalties that something beyond the mere sentiments of federal prosecutors should govern it, and grand juries aren't doing that. Thanks to Silvergate, we can at least begin the discussion about how to control now uncontrollable federal prosecutions.
September 23, 2013
A very thought provoking book, though it could just be that I am an attorney who, from time to time, finds himself on the defense end of a criminal case.
I work in an office building with some of the preeminant criminal defense attorneys in the city of Buffalo. Some of them do a great deal of work in the Federal Court building, and the complaints are frequent about how lopsided the U.S. Attorneys have it in the cases. Though our American justice system is supposed to favor the defendant (innocent until proven guilty), it is, for all practical purposes, exactly the opposite. This book compounded and expanded on that attitude.
The book made me simultaneously fear the idea of Federal criminal defense work and desire the work even more. Perhaps it is still some rookie naivety - a desire to change the system, if you will - but then the book does make a point of being realistic. The fact is, the justice system, at least at the Federal level, will favor the prosecution to the detriment of the defendant, and, by expansion, the American legal system, until something drastic happens at the very top.
I work in an office building with some of the preeminant criminal defense attorneys in the city of Buffalo. Some of them do a great deal of work in the Federal Court building, and the complaints are frequent about how lopsided the U.S. Attorneys have it in the cases. Though our American justice system is supposed to favor the defendant (innocent until proven guilty), it is, for all practical purposes, exactly the opposite. This book compounded and expanded on that attitude.
The book made me simultaneously fear the idea of Federal criminal defense work and desire the work even more. Perhaps it is still some rookie naivety - a desire to change the system, if you will - but then the book does make a point of being realistic. The fact is, the justice system, at least at the Federal level, will favor the prosecution to the detriment of the defendant, and, by expansion, the American legal system, until something drastic happens at the very top.
February 4, 2014
This was not quite the book I expected. I'm used to seeing stories where the Federal government "cracks down" on some poor schlub who shipped lobster tails in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes, or dealt in obscure orchids in violation of someone's interpretation of a law, or imports bits of wood in violation of another countries law, but this book concentrated primarily on the prosecution of "white-collar" defendants for, well, doing their jobs as they understood them. That is, until some zealous prosecutor decided to stretch existing statutes way out of shape to make previously legal behavior suddenly illegal. Also covered in some depth was a (shouldn't be) surprising amount of "law" that is so vague that sitting judges can't agree what it means, but that vagueness doesn't stop them from convicting people for violating...something.
The purpose of the book was to raise awareness of this type of prosecution, and the hand-in-glove behavior of prosecutors and judges that occurs far too often.
But the part of the book that disturbed me most was a point raised early and often that Federal prosecutors have a history of going after many people in a case, charge them with a myriad of crimes, and then offer plea deals to get some to testify against the real targets. The threat of long prison terms weighed against the cost of raising a competent defense (and the realization that the pockets of the government are, for all intents and purposes, bottomless) lead many to plea to lesser "crimes" even when completely innocent of all wrongdoing, and then - and this is the key quote from the book in my opinion - "not only sing, but compose" when testifying for the Prosecution.
This isn't a "justice" system. It's not even a legal system. It's the definition of "kangaroo courts." It's the kind of "justice" we associate with "people's republics."
Read the book. You won't look at "Law & Order" the same way again.
The purpose of the book was to raise awareness of this type of prosecution, and the hand-in-glove behavior of prosecutors and judges that occurs far too often.
But the part of the book that disturbed me most was a point raised early and often that Federal prosecutors have a history of going after many people in a case, charge them with a myriad of crimes, and then offer plea deals to get some to testify against the real targets. The threat of long prison terms weighed against the cost of raising a competent defense (and the realization that the pockets of the government are, for all intents and purposes, bottomless) lead many to plea to lesser "crimes" even when completely innocent of all wrongdoing, and then - and this is the key quote from the book in my opinion - "not only sing, but compose" when testifying for the Prosecution.
This isn't a "justice" system. It's not even a legal system. It's the definition of "kangaroo courts." It's the kind of "justice" we associate with "people's republics."
Read the book. You won't look at "Law & Order" the same way again.
April 14, 2019
There are so many arcane and malleable laws on the books that the idea is that the average citizen unwittingly commits three felonies a day. That's a pretty compelling premise for a book; someone should write it, because Silverglate did not. Instead, this is largely a defense of politicians and white collar execs like Michael Milken and Kenneth Lay, painted as victims of overzealous prosecutors and creatively applied laws. The real victims were rich white folks all along! ("First they came for the financiers and crooked energy company executives and I did not speak up because I was not a financier or crooked energy company executive...")
To be fair, Silverglate's core argument isn't unconvincing, and has ramifications well beyond the 1% (some of which are touched on here). The argument gets repetitive by the end, though, and isn't helped by the fairly dry writing.
To be fair, Silverglate's core argument isn't unconvincing, and has ramifications well beyond the 1% (some of which are touched on here). The argument gets repetitive by the end, though, and isn't helped by the fairly dry writing.
September 7, 2010
Absolutely outstanding. Tremendous advocacy withoug being polemical. I recommend this to all. Unfortunately, it is disturbing to the point of being almost too depressing to complete. It is a book that compels you to talk to your friends about it
February 13, 2014
I would have rated it higher but it's a bit repetitive. Otherwise it's quite good. Basically, the federal government (unlike the state govt) has a bunch of broad and vague laws that they can use to punish almost any behavior they want. They threaten long prison sentences and offer large rewards to coerce people to testify against their friends or coworkers. Congress any the courts support this behavior for the most part, even though it's detrimental for everyone in the long run.
February 2, 2011
Not as good as I'd expected. I wanted a collection of stories about regulators, law enforcement officials and busybodies targeting common people. Instead, I got a few overwritten anecdotes about the Feds going after local politicians, corporations, and junk bond traders. Sure, if these people were innocent then it's a shame, but this isn't going to arouse anyone's sympathy.
June 24, 2010
So disappointing. Had high hopes for this one but it was so one-sided and poorly argued, it was useless as a learning or analytical tool. Clearly intended only for those who already side with the author's views and don't want to have to question their assumptions.
June 16, 2011
Vanity recounting of cases that offers nearly zero support of the title-worth contention, and has no actionable material.
Sort of a big fat Atlantic Magazine style article as a book......
Sort of a big fat Atlantic Magazine style article as a book......
June 19, 2024
“It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the average busy professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, takes care of personal and family obligations, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have become not only exceedingly numerous and broad, but also impossibly vague���When the feds appear on the scene, claiming to represent the public interest by going after some citizen who had no reasonable way of knowing that his or her conduct could be deemed a felony, do not ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for all.”
Very important book with compelling evidence and persuasion. An even more important topic for the American citizen to understand.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) repeatedly overreaches its authority to prosecute average citizens. These examined cases are extremely chilling. Silverglate’s written a bombshell of an exposé on corruption within the modern structuring of federal criminal laws. And this book was written in 2009; the corruption Silverglate discusses has become so much more widespread and common place. Three of the most dangerous words for the American citizen are “obstruction of justice.”
Very thick read. Hard to slog through at times, but worth the workout. Also learned a lot more about American law than I anticipated and recommitted my agreement with Shakespeare that we ought to kill all the lawyers for a TRULY free society. (Though, for legal purposes, I reckon I ought to mention that’s a joke.) These are perilous times for the American citizen in every profession; no one is out of reach of the DOJ.
Very important book with compelling evidence and persuasion. An even more important topic for the American citizen to understand.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) repeatedly overreaches its authority to prosecute average citizens. These examined cases are extremely chilling. Silverglate’s written a bombshell of an exposé on corruption within the modern structuring of federal criminal laws. And this book was written in 2009; the corruption Silverglate discusses has become so much more widespread and common place. Three of the most dangerous words for the American citizen are “obstruction of justice.”
Very thick read. Hard to slog through at times, but worth the workout. Also learned a lot more about American law than I anticipated and recommitted my agreement with Shakespeare that we ought to kill all the lawyers for a TRULY free society. (Though, for legal purposes, I reckon I ought to mention that’s a joke.) These are perilous times for the American citizen in every profession; no one is out of reach of the DOJ.
January 31, 2021
Excellent subject and I was excited to read this. The information is well-researched and I got plenty out of it, however, there were some things that reduced the number of stars I gave it. For one, it's way too long a read for this subject. The author goes deep into the weeds in so many areas oftentimes I was saying to myself, 'ok, I get the point already'. The other flaw imo is that the examples he uses to illustrate the abuses of power by the state are totally unreliable to most people. Most of us will never be hedge fund managers or CEOs of multi-nationals.
I think he would have been better off also throwing in some examples of more everyday sorts of people who got steamrolled by the government. I understand that if the government could do it to people with means and connections they can do it to us, but showing us examples of the state doing it to us would have left a larger impact.
That said, what the state is able to do to anyone using such minutiae is grotesque. People need to be aware of these things.
I think he would have been better off also throwing in some examples of more everyday sorts of people who got steamrolled by the government. I understand that if the government could do it to people with means and connections they can do it to us, but showing us examples of the state doing it to us would have left a larger impact.
That said, what the state is able to do to anyone using such minutiae is grotesque. People need to be aware of these things.
Read
November 27, 2018It was very insightful and opened my eyes to a new perspective on our Government.
September 26, 2022
Feds, frauds, stocks and bonds, if you are into these you will like this one.
September 26, 2025
From the title and the book blurb, I thought this book was going to be about ordinary Joes like me who commit daily, random felonies with their normal everyday behavior. Instead the book is about mainly professionals that the Feds stretch laws to ensnare and overcharge. Professionals that have no idea they have done anything illegal. Defendants in lots of these cases were represented by the author. I would have rather read the book I thought was being described by the title, but this one was good too. Though a little dry in parts.
July 2, 2017
_Three Felonies_ refers to the claim that an ordinary American unknowingly commits an average of that number of felonies. This book sort-of-but-not-really backs up this claim, drawing on some pointed examples from several decades of US legal history. While these examples can be interesting, and the topic certainly is, this book seems weak, and says little of what it should.
The notable thing for any protest-marching, civil-libertarian type who picks up this book will be that the examples Silverglate draws on are not the ones which will resonate with you easily. Almost all of the defendants are wealthy, many are public figures, and some are hideously corrupt. In fact, in many cases the legal outrages pointed out rely on public sentiment being against the defendant. Silverglate may be writing for a different audience here than I expected, but his treatment is exacting: again and again, vague laws are used to transform civil infractions into crimes, and whatever the morality, it is not a rule of law that does that.
Part of this selection of the wealthy, however, means Silverglate doesn't really address his title. While doctors, lawyers, politicians and financiers may see examples of their everyday practice being described as criminal, this can't be said for the common man, and an easy (if confused) reading of the book could well support the intuition that everyone with money is necessarily a crook. The far more everyday nonsensical legalities of the US criminal code (like collecting feathers being [illegal](http://qctimes.com/collecting-bird-fe...)) are not covered in this volume, and it seems that it is things like that which would drive home Silverglate's message in style.
For taking an impartial approach to some easily-disliked characters, Silverglate wins some respect from me, and his discussion of the media's role in allowing miscarriage is a strong rebuke. But this book is a shadow of what it could've been. If you're a dyed-in-the-wool authoritarian American, you could learn from this. Similarly if you're the breed of radical who thinks mob justice is suitable for the corrupt. But if you already know what I'm talking about, you don't need to read this book.
August 3, 2017
The book references a select collection of federal prosecutions primarily in the author's practicing state of Massachusetts where he identifies deep rooted flaws in the federal criminal justice system. The book is written in an editorial fashion with supporting evidence.
Having been on the receiving end of false accusations and malicious prosecution, I can relate with the defendants in the referenced cases. The author clearly points out that the majority of the accused in this country are in fact guilty, but there is an alarming growing trend of over-prosecution and it has trickled down to state laws and local DA offices.
Here are a few of my favorite excerpts:
“Here one finds “the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.”
"Increases in the number of plea bargains also have the functional result of hiding these prosecutions from the public and avoiding scrutiny by the press, because cases in which defendants take plea bargains receive much less attention than those that go to trial.”
“Wrongful prosecution of innocent conduct that is twisted into a felony charge has wrecked many an innocent life and career. Whole families have been devastated, as have myriad relationships and entire companies.”
Excerpts From: Silverglate, Harvey. “Three Felonies a Day.” Encounter Books, 2011-05-10. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Having been on the receiving end of false accusations and malicious prosecution, I can relate with the defendants in the referenced cases. The author clearly points out that the majority of the accused in this country are in fact guilty, but there is an alarming growing trend of over-prosecution and it has trickled down to state laws and local DA offices.
Here are a few of my favorite excerpts:
“Here one finds “the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.”
"Increases in the number of plea bargains also have the functional result of hiding these prosecutions from the public and avoiding scrutiny by the press, because cases in which defendants take plea bargains receive much less attention than those that go to trial.”
“Wrongful prosecution of innocent conduct that is twisted into a felony charge has wrecked many an innocent life and career. Whole families have been devastated, as have myriad relationships and entire companies.”
Excerpts From: Silverglate, Harvey. “Three Felonies a Day.” Encounter Books, 2011-05-10. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
February 26, 2015
The Founders believed the only legitimate power is a limited one. They recognized that the power to indict, convict and punish is a potential engine of injustice. Consequently, the Founders embedded various limits upon federal power in the Constitution. Some of those limits have been eroded, and history shows prosecutorial power is sometimes abused.
Silvergate proposes a fix. The press is too gullible, he asserts, except when press freedom is at stake. The press is eager to cover the "perp walk" and to publicize the prosecution's viewpoint – in short acting as the government's uncritical cheerleader. Journalists should be more skeptical when covering testimony from witnesses who are under threat or incentive to not just sing but to compose.
It's legalized bribery, argues Silvergate, to reward witnesses whom DOJ deems sufficiently cooperative with lower sentences or dropped charges: Truth may well be compromised when a witness wants to avoid years behind bars and must please prosecutors to do so. Judges likewise ought to be more skeptical about coerced testimony and less willing to reward it.
Silvergate proposes a fix. The press is too gullible, he asserts, except when press freedom is at stake. The press is eager to cover the "perp walk" and to publicize the prosecution's viewpoint – in short acting as the government's uncritical cheerleader. Journalists should be more skeptical when covering testimony from witnesses who are under threat or incentive to not just sing but to compose.
It's legalized bribery, argues Silvergate, to reward witnesses whom DOJ deems sufficiently cooperative with lower sentences or dropped charges: Truth may well be compromised when a witness wants to avoid years behind bars and must please prosecutors to do so. Judges likewise ought to be more skeptical about coerced testimony and less willing to reward it.
April 9, 2013
Three Felonies may exaggerate, may sensationalize and may veer a bit left of center politically, but the subject is hard-hitting and should concern anyone who cares about liberty: the abuse - and sadly, the *common* abuse - of what is called "prosecutorial discretion."
Prosecutors must use their judgment and discretion when deciding whether to prosecute and, if they go forward, whom to prosecute and under what laws. If Silverglate is right - and after reading these cases I have no reason to think he is wrong - then over the last 10-20 years prosecutors have been throwing overboard their sense of what is right and wrong in exercising their prosecutorial discretion and instead have pursued political interests and professional acclaim and the expense of the innocent, where innocent means those who have reasonable warning of what is illegal and what is not.
This book is deeply disturbing and should be on every educated American's reading list.
Prosecutors must use their judgment and discretion when deciding whether to prosecute and, if they go forward, whom to prosecute and under what laws. If Silverglate is right - and after reading these cases I have no reason to think he is wrong - then over the last 10-20 years prosecutors have been throwing overboard their sense of what is right and wrong in exercising their prosecutorial discretion and instead have pursued political interests and professional acclaim and the expense of the innocent, where innocent means those who have reasonable warning of what is illegal and what is not.
This book is deeply disturbing and should be on every educated American's reading list.
November 16, 2017
This is an excellent book which explains how federal agencies, especially the DOJ, use federal statutes to prosecute and convict people who have not intentionally committed a crime, and in some cases, have either not committed a crime at all, or have committed a crime that no one would reasonably consider a crime. The examples are excellent and the demonstration of how far the American justice system has wandered from being a judicial system that protects that rights of individuals is striking.
January 5, 2023
This book is misleading. I expected a book about how ordinary innocent people get caught up in prosecutions, but got stories of people from rich and powerful positions were unfairly prosecuted (with exception of the chapter on pain doctors). This is densely written for lawyers or people in the legal system. It shows nothing of how an ordinary people could get caught up in the justice system from normal activities. From news articles I've read over the years this does happen, but nary a mention was made in this book. If you're not a lawyer, don't bother.
January 23, 2013
This book should be obligatory reading for all Americans. It documents how, through a combination of vague and overbroad federal criminal law, harsh sentences, misaligned incentives, and inadequate judging, the federal criminal justice system, destroys the lives, relationships, and careers of innocent people. As we rail against the prosecutorial misconduct that contributed to Aaron Swartz's death, this book is a primer in system failures that also need to be changed.
July 3, 2010
The law has grown so broad, so far reaching, and is often so vague and nebulous that most people regularly break the law without even realizing it.
December 30, 2018
Terrifying and accurate record of the court system in the US using intentionally loose laws and legal definitions to be able to 'get' anyone if they become a target.
February 7, 2021
Most people with a properly formed conscience have a good idea of what constitutes a crime. There's been some blurring along the edges, especially when it comes to "victimless"or "consensual" crimes, and criminal charges involved in political protests.
However, since the 1980's, pressure to crack down on a real or perceived increase in white-collar crime has led to a multitude of Federal laws that are simultaneously ill-defined and infinitely elastic, to the point that people are being arrested, charged and tried for things that they, their legal counsel, and even their neighbors wouldn't view as a crime. In particular, "wire fraud" and "mail fraud" become catch-all charges that can cover any communication by mail, phone or Internet that the prosecutor can portray as deceitful. Worse, ordinary lapses of memory in testimony are treated as "lying" or even "obstruction of justice," leading to even more charges.
And that assumes that the case even comes to trial at all. Increasingly, prosecutors are using frighteningly large monetary fines and lengthy prison terms as weapons to bully people into pleading guilty in hopes of getting a lighter sentence, even when they feel certain of their own innocence in the matter. Worse, these big scary sentences can also be used to pressure the accused into turning state's evidence and testifying against colleagues, clients, and employers.
The authors portray a terrifying funhouse world in which doctors are treated like drug pushers for helping patients with genuine chronic pain, where lawyers can be punished for giving their clients the best possible counsel, people who have any contacts abroad can be accused of espionage, and ordinary people who discover contraband like illegal drugs or CP can face a double-bind of risking prosecution for possession by turning it in to the police or risking prosecution for obstruction of justice for destroying it.
What happened to the country I grew up in, which was touted during the Bicentennial celebrations as a land of laws, where the law is clearly spelled out and not subject to the whim of kings or tyrants? Has our US Department of Justice gone mad in the quest for justice, like the corrupted Guardians in Kate Elliot's Crossroads trilogy?
However, since the 1980's, pressure to crack down on a real or perceived increase in white-collar crime has led to a multitude of Federal laws that are simultaneously ill-defined and infinitely elastic, to the point that people are being arrested, charged and tried for things that they, their legal counsel, and even their neighbors wouldn't view as a crime. In particular, "wire fraud" and "mail fraud" become catch-all charges that can cover any communication by mail, phone or Internet that the prosecutor can portray as deceitful. Worse, ordinary lapses of memory in testimony are treated as "lying" or even "obstruction of justice," leading to even more charges.
And that assumes that the case even comes to trial at all. Increasingly, prosecutors are using frighteningly large monetary fines and lengthy prison terms as weapons to bully people into pleading guilty in hopes of getting a lighter sentence, even when they feel certain of their own innocence in the matter. Worse, these big scary sentences can also be used to pressure the accused into turning state's evidence and testifying against colleagues, clients, and employers.
The authors portray a terrifying funhouse world in which doctors are treated like drug pushers for helping patients with genuine chronic pain, where lawyers can be punished for giving their clients the best possible counsel, people who have any contacts abroad can be accused of espionage, and ordinary people who discover contraband like illegal drugs or CP can face a double-bind of risking prosecution for possession by turning it in to the police or risking prosecution for obstruction of justice for destroying it.
What happened to the country I grew up in, which was touted during the Bicentennial celebrations as a land of laws, where the law is clearly spelled out and not subject to the whim of kings or tyrants? Has our US Department of Justice gone mad in the quest for justice, like the corrupted Guardians in Kate Elliot's Crossroads trilogy?
July 16, 2022
I think a lot of the 2-3 star reviews come from the fact that not too many of the examples given arouse our sympathies. A lot of the examples are people who are probably not the most honest people, and they have a lot of wealth and power at their disposal. There are definite exceptions, but still...
However, I think it's important to look past that and recognize the point of the book, which I think the author makes very clear from the outset. I've read 2 of Solzhenitsyn's 3 volumes of the Gulag Archipelago, and much of what the author says here rings true. The trumped up, broad, ambiguous charges abound, and things like "obstruction of justice" are thrown around and can be used against anyone. Then the corrupt system of incentivizing people to make up stories about others by giving them immunity or lesser sentences is just reprehensible. The defense can't bribe witnesses, but the prosecution can. It's absurd. It's so much like Solzhenitsyn's recounting of how the communists elicited names from their victims. While the U.S. doesn't use physical violence too much, is the violence of liquidating all your assets and reputation and ability to find work any less violent?
Even if you don't find these stories all that compelling because many are wealthy people, you should at least be able to recognize how what is being said here applies to the masses, especially in regard to incentivizing false testimony and forcing plea deals through draconian sentencing and stacking. The book is very insightful.
However, I think it's important to look past that and recognize the point of the book, which I think the author makes very clear from the outset. I've read 2 of Solzhenitsyn's 3 volumes of the Gulag Archipelago, and much of what the author says here rings true. The trumped up, broad, ambiguous charges abound, and things like "obstruction of justice" are thrown around and can be used against anyone. Then the corrupt system of incentivizing people to make up stories about others by giving them immunity or lesser sentences is just reprehensible. The defense can't bribe witnesses, but the prosecution can. It's absurd. It's so much like Solzhenitsyn's recounting of how the communists elicited names from their victims. While the U.S. doesn't use physical violence too much, is the violence of liquidating all your assets and reputation and ability to find work any less violent?
Even if you don't find these stories all that compelling because many are wealthy people, you should at least be able to recognize how what is being said here applies to the masses, especially in regard to incentivizing false testimony and forcing plea deals through draconian sentencing and stacking. The book is very insightful.
March 19, 2023
Well written book noting the disturbing over-reach of not only the federal government (in more than just DOJ issues) but also the lack of clarity in our society. Any of us can be mitigated by the whims of those with money, power or control. As we have seen with Covid-19, the government, the Pharma industry, and global concerns (e.g. WHO) that are appointed by the wealthy to ensure fear is spread to mitigate anyone's power but those who can dictate to others.
I was a long proponent of a strong federal government in my youth so that we could do things a consistent way and avoid 50 states going in their own direction. Now we have a federal government that does things for the Koch brothers, Gates, Wall Street, Pfizer, the mob, but the people are shoved aside (whether they be white, black, asian, mid-eastern, male or female). We have the most repressive government and institutions (corporations, government, NGOs, "charities") in the country's history. Is this what we truly want?
This book notes the nuances of the issues but also the lack of balance and appreciation of each soul, each individual - are we really guilty until proven innocent? We are now.... and not innocent until proven guilty. In the Conclusion, Silverglate notes that our laws should protect and not harass or attack and that might be the simplest of take-aways. It is harder to prove intent by looking at outcomes especially today where documentation is more readily available. Looking at outcomes and the path really does provide a lot of data.
I was a long proponent of a strong federal government in my youth so that we could do things a consistent way and avoid 50 states going in their own direction. Now we have a federal government that does things for the Koch brothers, Gates, Wall Street, Pfizer, the mob, but the people are shoved aside (whether they be white, black, asian, mid-eastern, male or female). We have the most repressive government and institutions (corporations, government, NGOs, "charities") in the country's history. Is this what we truly want?
This book notes the nuances of the issues but also the lack of balance and appreciation of each soul, each individual - are we really guilty until proven innocent? We are now.... and not innocent until proven guilty. In the Conclusion, Silverglate notes that our laws should protect and not harass or attack and that might be the simplest of take-aways. It is harder to prove intent by looking at outcomes especially today where documentation is more readily available. Looking at outcomes and the path really does provide a lot of data.
January 16, 2026
Basically, I echo what all the other reviewers say.
With a title like Three Felonies a Day, I thought this book would focus on the massive criminal code or the breadth of things we criminalize and how that impacts everyday individuals. I should have paid more attention to the subtitle: How the Feds Target the Innocent.
Silverglate argues that federal prosecutors are out of control and use vague laws to criminalize otherwise lawful behavior. Each chapter focuses on a different profession that the fed has gone after, ranging from doctors to lawyers to journalists.
It is a provocative argument and he primarily relies on his own cases (or the cases of his colleagues) as evidence. The first half of this book had me basically glued to the pages. But eventually, I started to lose the forest for the trees. I wanted a little bit more analysis and a little less narrative.
Political targeting is nothing new. So, what changed with these prosecutions? Was it the law? The judging styles? Someone at the justice department deciding the USSR might have something worth copying? I'm left uncertain.
But this book did leave me with a healthy dose of skepticism for celebrity trials involving insider trading or drug distribution. I think it is worth reading for that.
A good book, a rightful classic in criminal justice reform literature, but without the follow through I was hoping for.
With a title like Three Felonies a Day, I thought this book would focus on the massive criminal code or the breadth of things we criminalize and how that impacts everyday individuals. I should have paid more attention to the subtitle: How the Feds Target the Innocent.
Silverglate argues that federal prosecutors are out of control and use vague laws to criminalize otherwise lawful behavior. Each chapter focuses on a different profession that the fed has gone after, ranging from doctors to lawyers to journalists.
It is a provocative argument and he primarily relies on his own cases (or the cases of his colleagues) as evidence. The first half of this book had me basically glued to the pages. But eventually, I started to lose the forest for the trees. I wanted a little bit more analysis and a little less narrative.
Political targeting is nothing new. So, what changed with these prosecutions? Was it the law? The judging styles? Someone at the justice department deciding the USSR might have something worth copying? I'm left uncertain.
But this book did leave me with a healthy dose of skepticism for celebrity trials involving insider trading or drug distribution. I think it is worth reading for that.
A good book, a rightful classic in criminal justice reform literature, but without the follow through I was hoping for.
October 9, 2025
Eh, like others, not what I was expecting. This isn't stuff for the common man; this is examples of how our legal codes are entirely too complex with too many loopholes to make it impossible for someone mostly at the level of high level 7 figure professionals (minus the pain doctors, though again, kind of glosses over the counterpoint there, but did make a better point than the other chapters) to avoid prosecution. Which is important, but also doesn't make for a great mass market paperback on the ways the federal code screws the common man.
And there are a bunch of them. That qualify as federal felonies and misdemeanors that can be extremely picky and hit people who do not have an army of corporate lawyers to argue cases for them. It also fails at really examining places where drug laws have hit regular people, something far better covered in the New Jim Crow.
And for its topic, the marketing is a bit deceptive and it makes the mistake it's trying to reveal: it's entirely too complicated for the target audience unless with the ins and outs of tax codes and business codes that wind up as boring and confusing as reading the laws themselves.
Disappointed in this book.
And there are a bunch of them. That qualify as federal felonies and misdemeanors that can be extremely picky and hit people who do not have an army of corporate lawyers to argue cases for them. It also fails at really examining places where drug laws have hit regular people, something far better covered in the New Jim Crow.
And for its topic, the marketing is a bit deceptive and it makes the mistake it's trying to reveal: it's entirely too complicated for the target audience unless with the ins and outs of tax codes and business codes that wind up as boring and confusing as reading the laws themselves.
Disappointed in this book.
January 17, 2022
Part of the snag of this book is "a normal person wakes up, gets ready, drives to work and comes home, yet throughout the day unknown to anyone will commit three felonies a day". Yet the author never gives us a list of these felonies that we may or may not be committing. Most of this book deals with white-collar crime that the vast majority of people in the US would never commit. Also, using Enron as an example of Government overreach doesn't exactly send a ringing endorcement.
From these points, the book was kind of a let down.
However, the content in the book is thorough and important. Congress has written vague laws and US attorneys take advantage of these to elevate their careers. This is dangerous because as politics gets involved in daily life and the US attorneys go through their daily lives they can pick and choose who to go after and how to go after them. Without getting into details of the book, I was intrigued to find out many of the techniques they use and how they gain the upper hand with the people they are going after. Congress needs to get back to freedom and not allowing politics and personal vendettas to carry the weight of laws.
From these points, the book was kind of a let down.
However, the content in the book is thorough and important. Congress has written vague laws and US attorneys take advantage of these to elevate their careers. This is dangerous because as politics gets involved in daily life and the US attorneys go through their daily lives they can pick and choose who to go after and how to go after them. Without getting into details of the book, I was intrigued to find out many of the techniques they use and how they gain the upper hand with the people they are going after. Congress needs to get back to freedom and not allowing politics and personal vendettas to carry the weight of laws.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 89 reviews