Reversible Errors

Kindle County Legal Thriller #6

by Scott Turow

A suspenseful death row drama, Reversible Errors is Scott Turow's sixth Kindle County legal thriller.Rommy "Squirrel" Gandolph is an inmate on death row for a 1991 triple murder. His slow progress toward execution is nearing completion when Arthur Raven, a corporate lawyer and Rommy's reluctant representative, receives word of new evidence that will exonerate Gandolph. Arthur's opponent is the formidable prosecuting attorney Muriel Wynn. Together with Larry Starczek, the original detective on the case, she is determined to see Rommy's fate sealed. Meanwhile the judge who originally found him guilty is just out of prison herself. Scott Turow's compelling, multi-dimensional characters take the reader into Kindle County's parallel yet intersecting worlds of weary police, small-time crooks and ambitious lawyers. No other writer offers such a convincing picture of how the law and life interact – or such a profound understanding of what is at stake when the state holds the power to end a man's life.

Genres: Fiction, Mystery, Legal Thriller, Thriller, Legal, Crime, Mystery Thriller

580 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 1, 2002

About the author

Scott Turow is the author of ten bestselling works of fiction, including IDENTICAL, INNOCENT, PRESUMED INNOCENT, and THE BURDEN OF PROOF, and two nonfiction books, including ONE L, about his experience as a law student. His books have been translated into more than forty languages, sold more than thirty million copies worldwide, and have been adapted into movies and television projects. He has frequently contributed essays and op-ed pieces to publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and The Atlantic.

Reviews

[Metodi Markov · Rating 5 out of 5]

Страхотно ми хареса!

Понякога, раздаващите правосъдие са по-големи гадини от престъпниците - чувстват се всемогъщи …

Очаквах съдебен трилър, но получих много повече!

Тънък психолог, Търоу е изградил чудесно героите си и е истинско удоволствие да ги следваш из кривините на заплетен случай с тройно убийство.

Не знам защо, но по-голямата част от книгите му не са достатъчно популярни - според мен, те са много по-добри от повечето прехвалени романчета на Гришам например.

Цитат:

"Само че опре ли до любовта, никой не получава, което очаква от нея."

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here is another book review that was a re-visit for me.

Readers meet Arthur Raven, the protagonist. He is not handsome, or young, or someone most people would gravitate towards. But he is successful as a corporate lawyer because he is resilient through his dogged perseverance towards his cases.

But one day he is tested when he reluctantly takes the final appeal for Rommy Gandolph. Gandolph is a prisoner sentenced to die in less than two months, as a result of his conviction for a brutal triple murder and rape that occurred in 1991. This appeal takes place in federal court under the doctrine of habeas corpus - which permits appeals of convictions on grounds including an alleged violation of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the detective who arrested him, and the prosecuting attorney made a fairly winning case, and have no interest in having their case against him questioned.

But the Judge, who oversaw the original case and actually sentenced him to death, and has been jailed for corruption, now feels Raven has a case. What changed her mind?

Even if this novel is littered with small-time crooks, compromised cops, ambitious lawyers, and people struggling, the characters are believable, and the story feels plausible.

And, it actually feels like a compelling mystery, that will give readers a wonderful examination of the law, and a look inside what happens when "good" people become flawed people that cross the line. In this way, Turow does an excellent job of emphasizing the moral complexity of his characters.

Could redemption be possible? The next question for readers might be, whose redemption? No spoilers from me.

[Janete on hiatus due health issues · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rommy "Squirrel" Gandolph is an inmate on death row for a 1991 triple murder in Kindle County. Arthur Raven is a corporate lawyer who is Rommy's reluctant court-appointed representative. Arthur's opponent in the case is Muriel Wynn, Kindle County's chief deputy prosecuting attorney. Muriel and Larry Starczek, the original detective on the case, don't want to see Rommy's release. And Gillian Sullivan, the judge who originally found Rommy guilty, is only recently out of prison herself, having served time for taking bribes.

I almost DNF this book. I actually didn't care about the 2 couples' private lives (Arthur and Gillian; Larry and Muriel). I expected action and suspense, not couples' problems. In addition, there are many swearing and unnecessary sex scenes. That's why I skimmed the pages a lot. Book's conclusion was so boring, that I regretted reading this book, that's too long: 464 pages - it should have 110 pages less.

[RJ - Slayer of Trolls · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you write legal thrillers, you MUST write one, and only one, about a supposedly innocent man on Death Row who has exhausted all his options and whose only hope now is to be snatched from the jaws of fate by the legal heroics of our unheralded protagonist, best described as an undistinguished, harried lower-level lawyer who begrudgingly takes the case only to find that it provides a salvation of sorts for the spirit and a rebirth of optimist in the face of the bleak daily grind of a bureaucratic legal system that feeds on the souls of its participants, willing and unwilling alike. This is that book for Scott Turow, whose sixth effort in his Kindle County series is extremely readable, although languidly paced as usual. The mystery of "what really happened?" unfolds over 400-ish pages and there are plenty of twists and turns, although few of them are completely unexpected, with character arcs for each of the main players that are mostly satisfying and occasionally even happy.

[Razvan Banciu · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of Turow's best novels. More than a policier, a book about truth, friendship, love and human nature. The plot may be not the greatest one, but characters are vigouros, full of live and quite likeable, especially Arthur. A book I warmly recommend...

[Connie Cox · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am not sure how I missed this Turow when it first came out, but I am very glad to have found it. He is such a master of the legal suspense and you travel right along with his characters through all the legal technicalities…which how Arthur Raven gets the case of Squirrel, sitting on death row and claiming his innocence.

Well of course he is innocent, isn't he? I travelled all the ups and downs with Arthur. The thing I enjoyed about this is that I would decide I knew exactly what had happened, then 5 pages later be at a total loss as to what happened. All those niggling doubts!

Every character in this story had issues….and most had pretty BIG issues. They had been associated with this case and each other many years before, and now life had come full circle. They had changed, looked at life a bit differently perhaps. Turow took the reader back in time for several chapters, and though I do not usually like this in a fast paced book…it was necessary, and did not slow the story.

The title refers to not only the legal aspects of this book, but can be applied to each of the characters as well. In the legal system reversible errors can lead to a different outcome….is this true in life?

If you are looking for violent, gritty crime with larger than life beautiful heroes and sadistic villains, then this is not the book for you. If you are looking for a cast of real and flawed characters as well as a page turning suspense then grab this for your weekend read.

[Kelly · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book started off really exciting and then the middle was really slow and I almost just stopped reading it. By the end it picked up again and I had already made a pretty big investment by getting so far, so I just finished it.

This book has some fun little twists and turns in the middle, but it doesn't make up for the long drawn out parts. One thing that bugged me was the "good guys" in the book had dark secrets and the "bad guys" found God and wanted to repent. It was a little backwards. I get that we all have our problems, but the characters in this book were hard to like.

This book also had sex scenes and swearing. Not much of a fan.

[Margaret · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although Reversible Errors is about a convicted mentally challenged murderer who is scheduled to be put to death in a few days who claims his innocence and is assigned a court appointed attorney, Arthur Raven, to appeal.; the real story is the relationship of the characters, particularly the budding relationship of Arthur and Gillian Sullivan. Both Arthur and Gillian are dealing with their own issues.
Arthur has never been at ease with expressing himself to women he was interested in and Gillian, a former judge has just been released from prison. As these two form a connection through this case, they each start the process of healing, and along the way correct a wrong. Arthur, a corporate lawyer steps outside his comfort level as he takes on this court appointed case.

The book, to me, is more about healing and the ability to reach inside yourself and do things that you never expected to do.

[Richard Oosse · Rating 2 out of 5]

Another uneven effort from Turow. An interesting premise (Let's save an innocent man from death row!), a few fairly pedestrian twists (He did it! Wait, no he didn't!), a mostly lackluster investigation and a whole lot of personal drama.

I actually cared more about Arthur and Gillian's private lives than the case here. Arthur's sister, too was a character I grew to like and Turow is a good enough writer that I felt fully invested in their eventual fates.

But I had big big problems with the limited, shallow characterization of Larry the cop. So poorly written and so single-mindlessly intent on keeping Gandalph in jail that he seriously almost stopped me from reading. With no explicable motivation (Is he corrupt? Just stupid?), he ultimately seems to be just an excuse to keep driving the story to it's not very gripping conclusion. I found him so unbelievable that it kept me from caring about the not-insubstantial side story of him and Muriel.

[Adrienne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. Wonderful. A non-stop read. However, I must acknowledge that legal genres are my favourite books. The book showed in detail the legal forces required to remove an innocent man from death row. It is all about what you can prove in court. The complexity of the American legal system is illustrated. Moreover, the unrelenting and consistent drives of all the people involved are highlighted: prosecutors
and defending attorneys; the police; the judges, the huge relevance of prior legal judgements and all ancillary personal. I realise some reviewers have thought the book was slow going in the middle. I disagree the legal convolutions were a necessary part of the story. A superb story, brilliantly told and with great prose. Excellent Scott Turow.

[Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Arthur Raven is assigned a case by the federal appellate court. A former prosecutor, he has been in private practice for several years. He has never been a criminal defense attorney and his first client is a death row inmate. Romy Gandolph was convicted of a triple homicide and as his execution date draws near he writes a letter to the Court of Appeals proclaiming his innocence which is how Arthur ends up with the case.

The legal machinations in this case will be familiar to any true crime podcast junkies like myself. There are no easy paths to justice even if the offender is innocent. Scott Turow illuminates the court system and the roadblocks that prevent quick resolutions even in the face of new evidence. There aren't many winners in this process.

[Curtis Edmonds · Rating 5 out of 5]

The world breaks everyone, Papa Hemingway said, and afterwards many are strong at the broken places. True enough, if the metaphor is about bones. Bones break, but bones knit, and bones can be stronger for the experience. It’s a strong metaphor, but it doesn’t cover everything, doesn’t include everything that can break.

Bones break, but hearts break too. That’s another metaphor, of course. Hearts don’t break the same way bones break. Bones break and shatter and splinter, and you go to the doctor and get them set and splinted, and they heal and you go on your way. Hearts break, and no doctor can heal them, nothing but time can sweep up the pieces.

The healing of bones is a natural process; with enough time and care the most horrible injury can be made whole. The healing of hearts is a natural process, but sometimes, even with all the time and care in the world, hearts can heal incompletely. There can be sharp shards sticking out or pieces missing. Some heartbreaks are so serious that you walk around for years with a heart like a bag of broken glass; you rattle when you walk.

Reversible Errors is marketed as a legal thriller, in the same category with amped-up murder mysteries about young lawyers in trouble. It is nothing of the sort. There is a surface resemblance, of course, but it is not substantive. Scott Turow’s novels are not about the mechanisms of the law or the similar but more mysterious mechanisms of justice. The shadowy pathways of the legal system are subordinated to the murkier pathways of the heart.

The surface of the book is about that tried-and-true staple of the legal thriller; the death penalty. Reversible Errors is informed by Scott Turow’s own experience as a member of an Illinois panel tasked to investigate inequities in that state’s system of capital punishment. The story takes place, though, in Turow’s own Kindle County, and does not directly address the issues raised in the Illinois system. This is not a screed for or against the death penalty, which is welcome.

The crime is horrible; the execution-style slaying of a restaurant owner and two customers in the small hours of the Fourth of July, 1991. The accused is Romeo “Rommy” “Squirrel” Gandolph, who is convicted largely on his own confession. Ten years later – the bulk of the story takes place in the summer of 2001, largely to avoid the impact of September 11th on the characters – Gandolph submits a half-literate plea for mercy to a federal court, claiming that he never killed anyone. The court appoints a reluctant litigator to Gandolph’s defense – which is hampered substantially by Gandolph’s mental illness and inability to help his attorneys.

The mystery of the case is quickly resolved. After a quick flashback running down the facts of the case, a dying prisoner steps forward to take credit for the crime. Ermo Erdai, dying of cancer and languishing in Rudyard prison after an assault conviction, claims that he was the killer in the Fourth of July massacre. Although his motivation for committing the crime is murky, it provides at least a reasonable doubt about Gandolph’s guilt. In a normal legal thriller, this important information would have been a big surprise, not revealed until a slack moment in the plot. Turow gives us this information early on, cementing Gandolph’s innocence in our minds. This is not an accident, or carelessness on the part of the author.

Turow is not especially concerned with how justice is to be done for Rommy Gandolph, although his plight is an important backdrop for the plot. (This is one book, by the way, that you can judge by its cover; the cover features a man and a woman reaching for each other; the condemned man is a tiny figure in the background.) The real story is the relationships of the web of characters, and how they lose and find love. A police detective and an aspiring district attorney conspire to break each other’s hearts in 1991; they are reunited ten years later after years spent in unsatisfactory marriages. Gandolph’s lawyer seeks out and woos a difficult former judge in 2001; they manage to find each other despite their own difficult pasts.

Reversible Errors reminds us of the simple and inescapable truth; hearts don’t always heal whole; you can have splinters and shards sticking out, wounding those you come in contact with. The challenge for Turow’s characters is to find someone else whose hearts have been shattered in the same way, to find love and compassion. And most of all, forgiveness.

[Elinor · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had almost forgotten about Scott Turow, after reading his first blockbuster Presumed Innocent way back in 1987. So when I discovered this rather tattered novel in my rental condo in Mexico, I picked it up out of idle curiosity. Within the first few pages I was engrossed in this legal drama that had SO many twists that it took all of my mental faculties to keep up. And what a cast of complex, interesting characters that included not just one, but two couples experiencing the joys and sorrows of romantic love. (I appreciated the legend at the front that listed the characters). This is a rich, layered novel with various subplots, and numerous observations on the human condition. Highly recommended.

[Eddie Owens · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pros

Well written prose.

Interesting flawed characters

Cons

As ever, far too long: 431 pages - should have been 100 pages less.

Flitting between timelines becomes annoying.

Too much navel gazing.

Too much legal information. Concentrate on the thriller and dial down the legal stuff.

Tired plot. Death row inmate in last gasp plea. All been done before.

By the end I didn't care who did it.

[Amy · Rating 1 out of 5]

Wow this was awful. I gave up after 300 pages because no one should be subjected to this.

[Erin (from Long Island, NY) · Rating 5 out of 5]

(4.5 rounded up!)

[Rick Pucci · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved it. No one takes you into the Legal World like Scott and makes it a thrilling ride at the same time. Great character development is the key to his success IMHO. All the twists, although subtle, were still jarring. I also loved the ending.

My only complaint and other authors do this as well (especially John LeCarre), is this:
They introduce a ton of different characters in their books. Each character is then are referred to by their first name, often their last name and in Scott's Case - the antagonist even had a bloody nickname. Squirrel! It's hard enough early on in the book to keep track of everybody but when they get three names each, your 20 characters become 60! That's too bloody weight to carry!

Give them one name and stick to it. I have no clue why such big names authors do this.

But otherwise, pet peeve aside, this is a page-turner and extremely educational and why I give it 5 stars!

[CC · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kindle County defense attorney, Arthur Raven, unlucky in love and downtrodden in spirit, is assigned to appeal Death Row inmate Rommy "Squirrel" Gandolph's case. And lo, against all odds, Squirrel, who confessed to murdering three people, may actually be innocent, and framed.

Turow is a master of character, and it was the portrayl of Arthur Raven and a former judge, Gillian Sullivan, that I found thrilling. Here are two characters so well-crafted that all other lawyer/suspense/who-done-it characters seem like cardboard cutouts in comparison. Instead of bravado and macho bullshit you've got geniuine pain, and crumbled lives (she's an addict, he cares for a mentally-ill sister). The grace of the novel was in the ache of them both as they tried to merge their lives while preserving themselves in case it doesn't work. It was unexpected and authentic.

However, I wasn't invested in Rommy's case, nor did I care about all the time spent with the opposing counsel. Because of this, I'll designate the novel to three stars. Presumed Innocent remains Turow's best, but really, what a gifted writer.

[Rishi Prakash · Rating 3 out of 5]

A new kind of book for me because i never expected so many different levels in a "legal thriller". This was also my first Scott Turow so i had no idea how he writes because all my life i have been reading Grisham- the master legal story teller!

Scott includes many other things around the legal plot which makes him very different from Grisham.

He has the ability to find drama in the most minute points of law which makes it lively and lifts him into a league of his own when it comes to legal fiction. Reversible Errors -- a wonderfully resonant title -- is a account of love and redemption, crime and punishment, the intricacies of the legal system, the high cost of ambition, and the primal importance of our most basic human connections. Go for it to see how difficult and complicated life can be...

[Hannah Polley · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked this book up at a train station and looking at the back I wasn't sure I was going to enjoy it but I was very pleasantly surprised.

I quickly got into it and couldn't put it down. The book is about Rommy's case, who is on death row for a triple murder and it is his final appeal before he is executed. Arthur Raven is the defense lawyer that has to check there are no circumstances meaning that Rommy might be innocent and just at this time, another prisoner confesses to the murders.

I thought this might be a bit of a bleeding hearts book but I ended up rooting for Rommy and although I don't think we ever got the real story, was convinced of his innocence.

I just wish that Larry had more comeuppance in the book. You cannot treat suspects like that! And the confession was completely forced!

Great stuff and I would love to read more by this author.

[Fredrick Danysh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Now within days of being executed for a triple murder ten years earlier, Romny "Squirrel" Gandolph asks for one last look at his case claiming innocence. Arthur Raven is appointed to take the case even though he believes his new client to be guilty. Investigating the crime he discovers a flawed rx-judge, an ambitious prosector, a questionable cop, and self-serving witnesses. Arthur has an uphill battle attempting to save his client.

[Brett Milam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sometimes, in the pursuit of justice, one can get very horny. That’s what I learned reading Scott Turow’s 2002 novel, Reversible Errors. I didn’t expect there to be so much smut in my legal thriller (including incest!), not that I’m against some smut, and I do think it served a purpose, to some extent, in the book. But still. There was a surprising amount of talk about blowjobs and boobs.

The general gist of the story is that Rommy (who I kept wanting to refer to as Romney), a black man, is on death row for the July Fourth Massacre in 1991, where three people were killed (and the one female victim was sodomized after death). His attorney, Arthur Raven, who is typically a corporate lawyer, is appointed by the federal Court of Appeals to review Rommy’s second attempt at a writ of habeas corpus. In other words, it gives the defense a chance to reexamine the case to ensure no new evidence can prove Rommy’s innocence, or that he had ineffective counsel, or any manner of issues that could get the courts to reconsider executing him.

Arthur’s associate on the case is Pamela Towns, who right away believes that Rommy is innocent and agitates to him to become a a court crusader on this case. Arthur isn’t having it; instead, he’s preoccupied by wanting to have sex with her, despite her being his underling and much younger. Orr, he’s consumed with sex in general. He’s middle aged and horny. Add that to Arthur’s stubborn presumption at the beginning of the book that of course Rommy was guilty, and I was turned off by the main character. Fortunately, he got better later on.

The book hops between 1991, when the crime and investigation happened, and 2001 when the present day characters are reviewing the case. In addition, we hopped between a slew of characters’ perspective on the case. That made for a fast read.

One of the best written parts of the entire book, which made me completely uncomfortable in an intentional way and in the best of ways, was when Larry Starczek, the detective on the case in both time periods, was interrogating Rommy about the crime five or so months after it happened. He essentially keeps Rommy detained without a lawyer until he craps his pants, then he takes the pants as evidence of a “guilty conscience,” and then turns off the radiator in the room, so he’s freezing. After all of that, he begins feeding Rommy information only the killer, or the detectives like him investigating the crime, would know. That way, to get this quasi-torture to stop, Rommy can begin repeating back to Larry what he wants to hear.

Larry basically coaches him through a taped confession. The statement doesn’t even read like anything Rommy would have been capable of writing. Muriel Wynn, the prosecutor on the case in both time periods, although by 2001 she’s a rising star and is pegged as the next county prosecutor, dutifully takes down the confession. Which, I should note, she was brought into the room by Larry when Rommy was without his pants, so only adding embarrassment and shame to the torture. In addition to that, Larry lied that Rommy had the female victim’s cameo (a piece of jewelry) in his pocket, when in fact, he never did. Those two items, a coerced confession and a lie about critical evidence, is what leads to Rommy’s conviction and being sentenced to death. After all, who would confess to murders they didn’t commit? (Turns out, it is more common than we would ever imagine.)

What astounds me, and is relevant to my latest audiobook listen about cognitive dissonance, is that in his mind, Larry has taken a brutal killer off the streets. He’s convinced himself that he’s the hero of this saga. That he didn’t do anything wrong in that interrogation room. That Rommy truly gave a confession free, willingly and without coercion. It’s maddening to me, not least of which is because this exact cognitive dissonance plays out in real life repeatedly. We have plenty of data now about coerced confessions. Why do cops do this? Why do prosecutors, like Muriel, go along with it? And why do judges, like Gillian Sullivan, who heard the case as a bench trial (meaning she decided, not a jury), buy into it?

The whole dang system has perverse incentives. After all, Muriel’s career was on the rise after that. Larry has a reputation as a great detective and an incredibly smart man. And at least, for a time, Sullivan was also on track to be a big deal judge.

The pieces start falling apart, though. For one, in yet another blatant act of unprofessionalism at best, and unethical behavior at worse, Larry and Muriel are sleeping together (and they’re still scummy either way, because Larry is cheating on his wife in 1991 and 2001 (when they renew the relationship), and Muriel is cheating on her husband in 2001). That’s why I said the smut mattered: Larry would later rationalize his cognitive dissonance about the coerced confession — he didn’t say it like that, but that’s the clear insinuation — by suggesting to Muriel he did it for her. To help her. To impress her. I also thought it peculiar that Larry followed her around to depositions and such. Or sat at the counsel table with her. He’s the detective, not counsel! But maybe that happens in real life, but I’ve never heard of it, at least.

Even after that point, when it is clear that Rommy is innocent — Erno Erdai, an airport security supervisor killed those three people to a.) protect his nephew, Collins Farwell, and b.) to protect himself from an illegal scheme he was running, too — Larry destroys the irrefutable fingerprint report, and even after that, sees Muriel as his enemy when she decides to drop the case. He will not ever confront his culpability in getting it wrong. The system, and the individual within that system, will not allow for it.

Arthur meanwhile falls for Sullivan. Sullivan had a fall from grace since 1991, though: She was a heroin addict, although the papers thought she was an alcoholic, and ended up taking bribes to keep it quiet. She spent time in prison. Nonetheless, Arthur, still longing for love and sex, ends up dating her and sexing her up. Lots of sex. At least by that point, Arthur becomes the court crusader I like. We also learn that he’s a big softy who cries easily, and spends much of his time taking care of his older sister, Susan, who is afflicted with schizophrenia.

Eventually, though, the way Muriel works dropping the case and freeing Rommy is to put it all on Sullivan after she learns Sullivan was a heroin addict. In other words, it is clearly a problem of a fair trial if the presiding judge who convicted and sentenced him was high on drugs at the time. Which, fair. She was wrong, but it really irked me that Muriel and especially Larry get off for their role in railroading an innocent man, who mind you, lived for 10 years on death row with the threat of an impending execution. Rommy even had a sad reflection in the book about how much that was psychologically messing with him.

I also didn’t like how it made Arthur a jerk again: He feels betrayed that Sullivan never told him, and he’s initially a jerk to her. It is perversely amusing that Sullivan told him about an incestuous relationship she had with her brother (when she was only 14!), but not heroin use. They do get back together, and in a weird moment, he tells her he forgives her. Which I think is meant to be this sweet reconciliation, but I thought it was a bit gross. Like yeah, she should have told you, but you were a jerk!

Anyhow, all four of the main characters mentioned working on or related to case — Larry, Muriel, Sullivan and Arthur — are not that likable! I liked Sullivan the most out of the bunch because at least she was trying to get her life back on track, but once the relationship with Arthur happens in the book, I felt like her character was flattened. She stops being interesting and is purely a puppy-eyed doe for Arthur to finally “get some,” as it were.

The best character? Pamela, because of her conviction in her client’s innocence and how steadfast she was throughout. But she’s barely a peripheral blip in the book. I wish she had gotten fleshed out more instead of her flesh being examined.

That said, now that I think about it, maybe these characters being unlikable is the point in a way? I don’t know if Turow intended it, but we like to think of the criminal justice system as this lofty determinant of justice, but within that system are regular people influenced and biased by things that often have nothing to do with the case at hand. And that affects real people, and even gets them killed.

There’s a moment at the end of the book where John, the son of one of the murder victims, is talking to Muriel about who the real killer is, and he wonders, would Erno, a white man, had been sentenced to death like Rommy, a black man? Muriel, still apparently naïve and optimistic about the criminal justice system, thinks of course. But I’m skeptical because of the reams of data we have on the disproportionality in who gets sent to death row (poor minorities).

See, here comes the interesting part: Despite my criticisms of the book, particularly the characterization of Arthur — there was all the reason to like him, but then there would be these weird overly sexual moments, like during the “heartwarming” reconciliation at the end with Sullivan, Turow throws in how Arthur has an erection while sitting next to her, like come on! — I thoroughly enjoyed it. At about 553 pages, I devoured it in two days. I love legal thrillers! I love getting into that thicket. I love trying to free an innocent man, even in the fictional world. It gets my cerebral juices going.

The legal part of the book, the ups and downs and back and forth with Muriel and Arthur, all of that was riveting and extraordinarily well-done, and to my layman’s eye as someone who loves following the courts, believable. If you’re also into legal thrillers and can look past the smut to a certain extent, then I think you’ll enjoy this, too. (And for the record, I call it smut because I think smut is a fun word, not as a derrogatory thing, per se.)

[Larry Bassett · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have actually read a number of other books by Scott Turow. This is possibly the first audible book. I think I have liked many of his other books more than this one because of the familiarity of the characters. This book did not really feel much like a part of the Kindle County series at all.

This book displays some of the skill of mystery writing that this author has. It has a certain complexity and some of the twists and turns that you find in a riveting mystery. But it is also somewhat reminiscent of what I would call a soap opera. I don’t want to portray myself as someone extremely familiar with soap operas but that is just a feeling this book leaves me with. There are two love stories in the book that make that connection for me.

The mystery/crime story in the book is a 10-year-old murder with the convicted killer on death row. The resolution of the story has a lot of interesting complexity. The fact that the story was published nearly 20 years ago does not detract at all.

[Janice · Rating 3 out of 5]

"There were periods—most of the time now, and always for several years—when the sheer shame of her situation left her mad, mad in the sense that she knew every thought was disrupted by it, like a vehicle bouncing down a cratered road."

"...the whole significance of her upbringing was that it had inspired her to go on. It was like coming from Pompeii—the smoldering ruins and poisoned atmosphere could only be fled. Civilization would have to be reinvented elsewhere."

"They didn't understand that desert thirst for money or the security it bought. They didn't understand what it was to be at the world's mercy."

"It was as if her heart were driven forward by a great turning wheel—beneath which, over time, it was crushed. She lived with the absence, a form of mourning, that would continue to her last day."

[Kathi · Rating 4 out of 5]

9/10
This is the story of a murder investigation, both when the murders happened and 10 years later when the man who was convicted is on death row and someone else has now confessed to the crime. Against that legal backdrop are the personal dramas of love, ambition, lies, and second chances. Both aspects of the book are compelling, with plenty of surprises along the way.

[Wes F · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a bad legal thriller; Turow is a good writer overall. I think there were some aspects of the story that got a little unbelievable, mainly having to do with the 2 extra-marital affairs that were being carried on. The action and plot unfolded slowly, with twists and turns, and characters were filled out fairly well. The whole story still didn't totally grab me, as there just wasn't the umpffhh to make me not want to put the book down.

[Elaine Cook · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dug this out of books on cassette (!). Good story.

[Eva Dollas · Rating 1 out of 5]

First chapter was good went downhill from there. Hated every single character in this book.

[Alisa · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not much mystery to the murder mystery embedded in this book, and the courtroom scenes were in short supply. I love a good legal thriller/mystery and courtroom scenes but that action is a backdrop to the two romantic relationships that take center stage in the story. Not what I was expecting, and it really wasn't that good. You would never know this was written by the same author who wrote Presumed Innocent.

[Don · Rating 5 out of 5]

Four and a half stars. Arthur Raven, a corporate lawyer, is assigned by the court, to defend Rommy Gandolf, an inmate who is facing the death penalty. He is not helped by the fact that Rommy confessed to the murders ten years ago and is now professing his innocence. Arthur's opposition is the original tough prosecutor Muriel Wynn and the arresting detective Larry Starczek. Turow goes deep into the characters and there is not a wasted word in all 540 pages. Highly recommended.