This novel was free on Audible, and I had never read anything by the author, so I thought I would give it a shot. Based on this novel, I'll read another one of Peter's books, but I have one reservation, which I will discuss below.
The novel is very good, as are the characters, and the plot. Moreover, the pace of the novel is great, with no wasted verbiage, or unnecessary tangential plotlines that do not add anything. Any backstory is very relevant and adds to the plot and/or the characters. So many authors would not be content with a 320 page novel and would add in 100 or more pages of fluff unnecessarily. While I have no problem with long books, and I read scores of them every year, I very much appreciate concise, succinct novels, as they are so rare.
Overall, I would've rated this book at 4/5 given the above positives. However, given a few negatives, I had to bump this down to 3/5.
First, the author is NOT a lawyer, and this becomes evident if you are a trial lawyer, like me. I generally try not to read legal fiction for these reasons, but sometimes, I veer off course. This is not a spoiler, but during the trial, the judge lets in evidence of unrelated "violent" acts, having nothing to do with the crime charged, which do not provide evidence of a pattern or similar modus operandi. This is highly prejudicial, and while judges do make mistakes, this is a pretty obvious mistake that criminal judges would not make. I can allow one judge to make such an error, but if the author continues to have similar errors in trial, then I'll probably have to move on. There were a few other areas of the witnesses testimony that would never have come in. The protagonist didn't object to a lot of obviously objectionable questions, as a good lawyer would have. One witness was not allowed to offer opinions, but then the protagonist did not object to another witness offering other objectionable, not relevant opinions.
Second, there were too many twists at the end. The novel was very good, and it didn't need the twists. Forcing them into the novel made the novel feel like less, not more. If the characters, plot, and pace of the novel keep the reader engaged, you don't need tricks in order to satisfy the reader.
Finally, and this one is admittedly petty, but be very careful, especially as a non-lawyer, from saying that the lawyer is the best cross-examiners another character has ever seen. It's just this one guy's opinion, so that's fine, but the cross examination was not so masterful that I'd expect anyone to say he's so good at interrogating witnesses that the CIA would want him. 'Show, don't tell,' as they say.