What makes the reading tough for me is Antonelli's crisis of conscience on the question of 'is it right that he gets this psychopath off scot free?' Since he's in America, operating within one of the worst legal systems in the world (the adversarial), he's obliged to trash his conscience or quit the profession. Sadly, American lawyers adapt their conscience to a clapped-out system and accept money as their reward for the damage that does to the soul. A third choice would be to militate to change the system, as Evan Whitton did in Australia (in his book 'Our Corrupt Legal System).
I think I got the central idea that the novel hung on. All good stories have one. The author alluded to another one which I found more interesting: why is the American legal system such a corrupt, clapped-out, self-serving entity and why is it so impossible to do anything about it? It took a dictator in Europe to get rid of the inherited British racket of justice that polluted France. Napoleon's system is enjoyed by a civilized Europe today. It seeks the truth, not the enrichment of exploiters with law degrees. Here's Whitton's take on Napolean's improvements to the Inquisitorial system. He compares it to the racket, or adversarial system of the UK, US and most British Empire countries: A comparison:
A. The French system. Trained judges control the process. They use a series of filters to protect the innocent; do not conceal evidence; and do not let lawyers use sophistry to pollute the truth. Witnesses give evidence as a narrative. The common-sense of ordinary people is valued: jurors sit on the bench with judges and can outvote them. Suspects must answer questions. Most hearings take a day or so. About 95% of accused are convicted. Reasons are given for verdicts.
B. The adversarial racket. Lawyers control the process. They can use sophistry to confuse witnesses and jurors and can prolong trials unnecessarily for weeks or months, confirming Professor Fred Rodell's claim that 99.44% of lawyers don’t know the legal trade is a racket. In it, suspects can refuse to answer questions. Judges conceal evidence on the ground that jurors are stupid. It gets sillier; judges sitting without a jury have to conceal evidence from themselves, which is quite a trick and implies that judges are stupid. No argument there. As noted, about 50% of accused – about 75% in rape cases – get off. Jurors do not give reasons. What might have been. If Admiral Villeneuve had followed Napoleon’s instructions in October 1805 and sailed north instead of south, England and its former colonies would probably use the inquisitorial system. The racket persists because lawyers, after 6½ centuries, are still the “dominant influence” in English-speaking legislatures. In the US today, lawyers are 0.2% of the population and 60% of the Senate. Hence the Tammany Hall saying: “More lawyers live on politics than flies on a dead camel.” (end of Whitton quote).
The real significance of this devotion to the adversarial racket is that, like Britain, the US can never become great as long as it maintains the racket system. It's fate is that of a crippled leper, dogged by impotence to defend the common good; to seek the truth above all else. I'll conclude with a quote from Socrates addressing one of the rulers of ancient Athens. It's highly appropriate:
"Oh, my friend, why do you, who are a citizen of the great city of Athens, care so much about laying up wealth, honour and reputation, and so little about wisdom and truth and improvement of the soul? Are you not ashamed?"
I'm French, not American, so I have no need to be ashamed on this score.