What do you think?
Rate this book
Judicial Soup
414 pages, Paperback
Published May 7, 2024
5 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 15, 2024
Thank you to the publisher and for NetGalley, which provided me with a free copy of this book in exchange for an unbiased review.
I just finished Judicial Soup, by Shannon Bohrer. I’m not completely sure whether I want to say that it is a book about a wrongful conviction or whether I should say that it purports to be such a such book. So I won’t commit to either position at the present time.
In order to put this review into context, I have to explain my own background. I am a former attorney, who had worked for the public defender‘s office. While I have not practiced law in a long time, I am very interested in books about the flaws of our legal system, constitutional law and the US Supreme Court. So, I should be the target audience for this. A book about a wrongful conviction has someone like me in mind as its reader.
This book was extremely thorough in covering the trial testimony. I can’t imagine any book doing a better job in that regard. On that basis, up until the final couple of chapters, I was certain that I was ether going to give this an A or an A+.
The defendant in this case was an ICE agent. As the author pointed out very early in the book, if a law enforcement agent can be falsely convicted, it could happen to anyone. Meanwhile, after a discussion at the beginning of the book about what happened to lead to his arrest, along with a discussion of the author’s personal involvement in the case as an expert witness for the defense, every chapter then was about the trial. In between each chapter, there was an entry entitled Chapter whateverA, which briefly told the story of a person exonerated after being falsely convicted.
There was a bench trial, which means that the defendant chose to have the case decided by the judge, rather than a jury. That was a strategic decision by the defense, out of a fear that a jury would be predisposed against a law enforcement officer. I almost certainly would not have agreed with that strategy, in most circumstances. But, I’m open to the idea that since it was being tried in the District of Columbia, a DC jury might be so liberal that it is the rare jury that would be predisposed against an ICE agent.
I knew coming into reading the book that the defendant would be convicted. I was told, by the author, at the start that the false conviction wasn’t a result of one single thing, but a cumulative matter. So, after the conviction, I was expecting the chapter(s) that told how the conviction was overturned and why it was a false conviction. Those chapters never came. The defendant was never exonerated. And, honestly, as a former defense attorney, who understands the standard for reversing a verdict on the grounds that it was factually wrong (as opposed to legal errors made by the judge), I don’t see how this defendant could prevail on the argument of it being factually wrong. He got a trial in which the judge, serving as the trier of fact, did not believe him and believed that the state proved their case beyond a reasonable. At the end of the book, I was left with the idea that what we have here is a man convicted because the judge, who was in the room to assess his credibility, did not believe his story. The fact that an expert witness, who was paid to work for the defendant, believed his story carries absolutely no weight.
When I was in law school, I was correctly described by a friend as “being farther to the left than even Earl Warren”. And that assessment was not only true at the time, but it becomes even more true the more that time passes. So, when a book can’t convince me that this was a wrongful conviction, I don’t know what chance it has of convincing others.
When it comes to a grade, as I said, I was expecting throughout almost the whole book to give it an A. That’s how good the coverage of the trial testimony was. But, now that I have finished it and I realize that I no longer consider this a book about a wrongful conviction, I must lower my grade. I will choose to be generous today and only downgrade it to a B. I’m not convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that is deserves a B, but that’s not really the right standard to use. I just feel that downgrading it all the way to a C would feel too punitive. Goodreads and NetGalley require grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, a B equates to 3 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
I just finished Judicial Soup, by Shannon Bohrer. I’m not completely sure whether I want to say that it is a book about a wrongful conviction or whether I should say that it purports to be such a such book. So I won’t commit to either position at the present time.
In order to put this review into context, I have to explain my own background. I am a former attorney, who had worked for the public defender‘s office. While I have not practiced law in a long time, I am very interested in books about the flaws of our legal system, constitutional law and the US Supreme Court. So, I should be the target audience for this. A book about a wrongful conviction has someone like me in mind as its reader.
This book was extremely thorough in covering the trial testimony. I can’t imagine any book doing a better job in that regard. On that basis, up until the final couple of chapters, I was certain that I was ether going to give this an A or an A+.
The defendant in this case was an ICE agent. As the author pointed out very early in the book, if a law enforcement agent can be falsely convicted, it could happen to anyone. Meanwhile, after a discussion at the beginning of the book about what happened to lead to his arrest, along with a discussion of the author’s personal involvement in the case as an expert witness for the defense, every chapter then was about the trial. In between each chapter, there was an entry entitled Chapter whateverA, which briefly told the story of a person exonerated after being falsely convicted.
There was a bench trial, which means that the defendant chose to have the case decided by the judge, rather than a jury. That was a strategic decision by the defense, out of a fear that a jury would be predisposed against a law enforcement officer. I almost certainly would not have agreed with that strategy, in most circumstances. But, I’m open to the idea that since it was being tried in the District of Columbia, a DC jury might be so liberal that it is the rare jury that would be predisposed against an ICE agent.
I knew coming into reading the book that the defendant would be convicted. I was told, by the author, at the start that the false conviction wasn’t a result of one single thing, but a cumulative matter. So, after the conviction, I was expecting the chapter(s) that told how the conviction was overturned and why it was a false conviction. Those chapters never came. The defendant was never exonerated. And, honestly, as a former defense attorney, who understands the standard for reversing a verdict on the grounds that it was factually wrong (as opposed to legal errors made by the judge), I don’t see how this defendant could prevail on the argument of it being factually wrong. He got a trial in which the judge, serving as the trier of fact, did not believe him and believed that the state proved their case beyond a reasonable. At the end of the book, I was left with the idea that what we have here is a man convicted because the judge, who was in the room to assess his credibility, did not believe his story. The fact that an expert witness, who was paid to work for the defendant, believed his story carries absolutely no weight.
When I was in law school, I was correctly described by a friend as “being farther to the left than even Earl Warren”. And that assessment was not only true at the time, but it becomes even more true the more that time passes. So, when a book can’t convince me that this was a wrongful conviction, I don’t know what chance it has of convincing others.
When it comes to a grade, as I said, I was expecting throughout almost the whole book to give it an A. That’s how good the coverage of the trial testimony was. But, now that I have finished it and I realize that I no longer consider this a book about a wrongful conviction, I must lower my grade. I will choose to be generous today and only downgrade it to a B. I’m not convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that is deserves a B, but that’s not really the right standard to use. I just feel that downgrading it all the way to a C would feel too punitive. Goodreads and NetGalley require grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, a B equates to 3 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
May 15, 2024
The book Judicial Soup tells the story of a court case in which the author was an expert witness. The case involved Heath Patrick Thomas, a former ICE agent, and his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon.
From the beginning, the reader knows two things: Heath was convicted, and the author believes the verdict was unjust. The rest of the book is an analytical review of the entire case. While the book has merit, especially for the legal community and people involved in the criminal justice system, it lacks one major component – graveness. Yes, Heath was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, but no shots were fired, no one was injured, and there was no lengthy prison sentence that resulted from the conviction.
Heath Patrick Thomas might argue that this case had profound graveness on his personal life. He lost his career just months away from a full pension, and his life since the verdict has been a constant struggle for gainful employment.
The incident that set things in motion began at a bar. Heath and his companions had what they believed was poor service. Heath complained to the manager as he went to the bar to close out his tab. There are conflicting statements over Heath's level of intoxication, his level of anger, and his use of profanity, but the end result was that a bouncer in the bar came up behind Heath and, after asking him to leave, put him in a bear hug and carried him outside. Once outside, Heath's concealed weapon came loose, and while attempting to reholster his gun, the bouncer intervened and grabbed the barrel of the gun. A struggle ensued, and the police were called. Heath was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
The case was eventually heard by a judge in a bench trial. The prosecution argued that Heath was embarrassed at being physically removed from the bar and pulled his weapon in retaliation. The defense argued that the weapon had come out of his holster inadvertently, and the subsequent struggle over the gun was caused by Heath not wanting to lose control of his weapon.
The author does a commendable job of arguing that Heath's version was likely the truth. As the case proceeds and the judge announces his verdict, you feel for Heath that his career was ruined by one judge's interpretation of a minor incident.
Every chapter in the book is preceded by a synopsis of more serious wrongful convictions. I was aware of some of them, but not all of them. The facts are that wrongful convictions are much more common than most people believe. This case shows that a wrongful conviction, even in a minor case, can have just as severe a consequence for the person wrongfully convicted.
Note: I received a PDF copy of the book prior to publication for review.
From the beginning, the reader knows two things: Heath was convicted, and the author believes the verdict was unjust. The rest of the book is an analytical review of the entire case. While the book has merit, especially for the legal community and people involved in the criminal justice system, it lacks one major component – graveness. Yes, Heath was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, but no shots were fired, no one was injured, and there was no lengthy prison sentence that resulted from the conviction.
Heath Patrick Thomas might argue that this case had profound graveness on his personal life. He lost his career just months away from a full pension, and his life since the verdict has been a constant struggle for gainful employment.
The incident that set things in motion began at a bar. Heath and his companions had what they believed was poor service. Heath complained to the manager as he went to the bar to close out his tab. There are conflicting statements over Heath's level of intoxication, his level of anger, and his use of profanity, but the end result was that a bouncer in the bar came up behind Heath and, after asking him to leave, put him in a bear hug and carried him outside. Once outside, Heath's concealed weapon came loose, and while attempting to reholster his gun, the bouncer intervened and grabbed the barrel of the gun. A struggle ensued, and the police were called. Heath was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
The case was eventually heard by a judge in a bench trial. The prosecution argued that Heath was embarrassed at being physically removed from the bar and pulled his weapon in retaliation. The defense argued that the weapon had come out of his holster inadvertently, and the subsequent struggle over the gun was caused by Heath not wanting to lose control of his weapon.
The author does a commendable job of arguing that Heath's version was likely the truth. As the case proceeds and the judge announces his verdict, you feel for Heath that his career was ruined by one judge's interpretation of a minor incident.
Every chapter in the book is preceded by a synopsis of more serious wrongful convictions. I was aware of some of them, but not all of them. The facts are that wrongful convictions are much more common than most people believe. This case shows that a wrongful conviction, even in a minor case, can have just as severe a consequence for the person wrongfully convicted.
Note: I received a PDF copy of the book prior to publication for review.
July 23, 2024
For anyone who has been part of a trial or is a fan of police or legal shows, this book is a detailed study of what goes wrong in real life. Bohrer paints the picture with in depth research, interviews and his experience as an expert witness in the case. His background as an officer of the law and trainer shows another perspective of discovery and the lack of proper investigation in this case. In between the main chapters are one to two page summaries of other cases where evidence was ignored or DNA was introduced to exonerate. These case studies clearly illustrate that solid investigation is not happening in too many circumstances- and our police shows influence our perception that good will win out. I would buy this book for those with the ambition to practice law, both prosecutors and defenders.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews