What do you think?
Rate this book
The Search for Justice: A Defense Attorney's Brief on the O.J. Simpson Case
The architect of O.J. Simpson's Dream Team tells the inside story of the Simpson murder trial from the beginning. In this book, the man who created the defense strategy answers the questions of fact, law, and ethics that were fired at him before and after the jury's verdict. With candor, wit, and compassion, Shapiro brings to light the details of The Trial of the Century, giving us revealing glimpses of O.J. Simpson, Johnnie Cochran, Marcia Clark, Chris Darden, Judge Lance Ito, Barry Scheck, F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, and many others.
At the heart of the book is the dramatic story of how Shapiro helped to win what many considered to be an open-and-shut case against O.J. Simpson. In the midst of mounting the legal defense, Shapiro had to deal with the tumult of a media circus, a fractious defense team, and his own priorities as a husband and father. Through it all, he maintained a steady hand and the quiet belief that justice would prevail.
According to Shapiro, the only possible verdict was the conclusion of reasonable doubt reached by the jury.
At the heart of the book is the dramatic story of how Shapiro helped to win what many considered to be an open-and-shut case against O.J. Simpson. In the midst of mounting the legal defense, Shapiro had to deal with the tumult of a media circus, a fractious defense team, and his own priorities as a husband and father. Through it all, he maintained a steady hand and the quiet belief that justice would prevail.
According to Shapiro, the only possible verdict was the conclusion of reasonable doubt reached by the jury.
- GenresNonfictionTrue Crime
411 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 1, 1996
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
June 18, 2009
I met Robert Shapiro many years ago. In fact, it was about 12 or 13 years ago. I was teaching in Sugarland and dating a girl who lived in Pearland. Mr. Shapiro was signing his books somewhere... don't recall where, but my girlfriend was able to show up at the location very early to procure a place in line; in fact, she was first in line.
By the time I showed up, many hours later, a long line had formed, but I simply moseyed my way to the front. I heard whisperings as I got closer, "Must be the boyfriend."
Right before Mr. Shapiro came out, his representative came out and said that Mr. Shapiro would not have time to make small talk. He could only sign and go.
Pulling the lady aside, I said , basically, "Hey, this girl has been here for eight hours. Do you think he'd talk to her?"
When Mr. Shapiro came out, he signaled for my girlfriend to come over to the signing table. I walked up, too, and explained, "I'm the boyfriend."
They had a nice chat about life and such, we got our signatures and were the envy of all.
By the time I showed up, many hours later, a long line had formed, but I simply moseyed my way to the front. I heard whisperings as I got closer, "Must be the boyfriend."
Right before Mr. Shapiro came out, his representative came out and said that Mr. Shapiro would not have time to make small talk. He could only sign and go.
Pulling the lady aside, I said , basically, "Hey, this girl has been here for eight hours. Do you think he'd talk to her?"
When Mr. Shapiro came out, he signaled for my girlfriend to come over to the signing table. I walked up, too, and explained, "I'm the boyfriend."
They had a nice chat about life and such, we got our signatures and were the envy of all.
July 24, 2026
SHAPIRO’S FRANK COMMENTS ON THE CASE, AND THOSE INVOLVED
Robert Shapiro (b. 1942) has defended a number of prominent people (e.g., Erik Menendez, the Kardashian family), but he is probably best-known for his being a prominent member of the ‘Dream Team’ that successfully defended O.J. Simpson in his murder trial.
He wrote in the Prologue to this 1996 book, “The most frequent question a defense attorney is asked … is, ‘How do you sleep at night?’ … The second thing I heard, especially from people who know me well and feel comfortable leaning on me just a bit harder, was 'In your heart, don’t you know he did it?’ My answer to the second question is simple: ‘I wasn’t there, you weren’t there. Ultimately, it is a matter to be decided by the court.’ My answer to the first question … is a little longer… I am a professional, I have a constitutionally mandated job, and I work hard at it… And so I sleep very well.” (Pg. viii, xix)
He explains, “The terms ‘Dream Team’ and ‘Trial of the Century’ didn’t come from me, and I was never comfortable with either of them. My primary focus from the beginning of the Simpson case was to vigorously defend my client and to assemble a team of experts to strengthen that defense…. Perhaps, I thought my being a white Jewish lawyer defending a black man accused of killing two white people, one of whom was Jewish… could somehow convey the message that the American system of justice is ultimately more important than any racial or religious element within it. Unfortunately, I was wrong on all counts… But even now I would argue that optimism and idealism---which keep me in this business---are difficult to sustain without sustaining some naiveté as well.” (Pg. xviii-xix)
After Simpson failed to appear for his surrender to authorities [beginning the famous ‘slow-motion chase’], Simpson friend Bob Kardashian and Shapiro together read Simpson’s handwritten note addressed ‘To my friends’; Shapiro notes, “I don’t think there was anyone in that room who didn’t believe, at that moment, that O.J. had gone off to kill himself.” (Pg. 42)
He argues, “Later there was much made of the fact that [Simpson] also had a great deal of cash, his passport, and beard-and-mustache disguise with him in the car. The theory was that he was heading for Mexico, or even farther. But through what airport, over what national border, could this man have reasonably gone?… for four days his image had been plastered on the front of every newspaper and broadcast on every television news report. The explanation was simple. The … disguise … [was] so that he could take his children on a planned trip to an amusement park without being recognized; the sizable amount of cash and passport were always with him… it was evidently O.J.’s intention that after his suicide the cash go immediately to his small children as a stopgap support measure until the larger legal matters were handled on their behalf.” (Pg. 46-47)
He reports, “We know that four detectives (Lange, Vannatter, Fuhrman and Phillips) left the crime scene at Bundy… after only a minimal, almost perfunctory, investigation, and then went to O.J.’s house at Rockingham, either because they believed that someone there was in imminent danger (according to Fuhrman) or to notify O.J. Simpson of his ex-wife’s death and the needs of his small children (according to Vannatter)… it was implausible to me that … the only four homicide detectives on a case would leave a crime scene---and let another ten hours pass before the coroner was called to the scene, which is a violation of state law… Why was the department criminalist, Dennis Fung, dispatched to Rockingham first (where no crime was known to have taken place) as opposed to Bundy (where evidence of a double homicide was everywhere?).” (Pg. 70-71)
He continues, “If, as Vannatter testified, O.J. was not then a suspect, why, when no one answered the telephone or the bell at the gate after 10 or 15 minutes, didn’t they say, ‘Let’s go back to Bundy and continue the investigation'? Instead, Fuhrman testified that he decided to take a walk around the corner and … saw the Bronco, parked at what he thought was an odd or inappropriate angle… he said he saw blood... on the driver’s door, as well as faint blood smears on the bottom of the door. Now, he decided, it was an emergency, so he scaled the fence… and they proceeded to inspect the property for hours without a warrant. They discovered O.J.’s daughter, Arnelle… The detectives woke [her] up… and told Arnelle she had to let them into the house ‘so they could search the premises.’ It’s here where the notification explanation quite obviously falls apart.” (Pg. 71)
He adds, “Ironically, if the detectives had said from the very beginning that they believed O.J. was a suspect and they were in hot pursuit, such an opinion would’ve been sufficient to allow their entry onto the property without a warrant. Instead… they built a web of lies, with Mark Fuhrman at its center. And they got caught in it.” (Pg. 73)
He recalls a conversation with Johnnie Cochran: Shapiro said, “There’s something happening that I don’t like… Race shouldn’t be an issue here.’ ‘It’s always an issue, Bob,’ Johnnie said, 'It’s an issue with everything in life.’ I just looked at him. ‘But I hoped it wouldn’t be. I BELIEVED it wouldn’t be.’ He smiled. ‘That’s because you’re not black.’” (Pg. 192)
After a bitter argument between Shapiro and defense attorney F. Lee Bailey, “Bailey stayed. Johnnie Cochran got the self-awarded Nobel Peace Prize for smoothing at least the appearance of troubled waters… Although he never admitted a thing and has repeatedly denied the charges of leaking, I never forgave him---and don’t to this day… Why Johnnie and O.J. kept him on the team is a question for them to answer. All I knew was that … I had made a commitment to a client… I meant to honor.” (Pg. 220)
He says of Cochran’s opening statement, “[He] used only fragments of the scientific evidence our experts had worked so hard to interpret and quantify. He elaborated on the crippling nature of O.J.’s arthritis, in spite of the fact that we knew O.J. had shot an exercise video three weeks before the murders.” (Pg. 230)
He states, “I had come to understand the fundamental difference in our philosophy of client representation. Johnnie always told O.J. what he wanted to hear. My position had always been that the client hired me to be the lawyer. Just as I insisted my client tell me the truth, I was determined to tell him the truth as well. It wasn’t always happily received.” (Pg. 239)
He said of Cochran’s closing statement, “the majority of the black jurors were already in our camp and Johnnie’s arguments should be addressed to those we’d felt were pro-prosecution… And then he made a terrible mistake. He linked Fuhrman, a banal, petty, mindless racist, with the most monstrous murderer of all time, Adolf Hitler. In less than a minute, he accelerated from a corrupt Los Angeles cop to the Holocaust itself, suggesting to this jury that they could stop Fuhrman, as the Germans had not stopped Hitler… It was gratuitous, inflammatory, and just plain wrong… it was completely unnecessary.” (Pg. 338-339)
He reports, “‘Every explanation that they’re desperately trying to come up with is a highly improbable influence [‘inference’?], [Barry] Scheck said. “The most likely and probable explanation is the one that is not for the timid or the faint of heart. Somebody played with this evidence!” “That’s what this case is all about, I thought. Ito had told the jury from the beginning that a defense team has no burden---they don’t have to prove anything. But we HAD proved something. We’d proved reasonable doubt.” (Pg. 339)
After the verdict, Shapiro was scheduled to be interviewed both by Barbara Walters, and Larry King. “I told Cochran that I was going to be frank on these programs… You’ve got to know what my feelings are about this. It wasn’t necessary, what you did, what you said. The Holocaust reference, the Nation of Islam guards, raising the issue of race to ask for jury nullification.” (Pg. 347)
He summarizes, “Against their ‘mountain of evidence,’ where did reasonable doubt come from? … On one hand, there’s evidence of blood in a Bronco. But the first witness who said he found the blood was found to be… a liar… Fuhrman described the glove as ‘wet and sticky.’ Eight or nine hours after it was used in a murder? Why wasn’t it dried out? Had it been stored in a moisture-retaining bag and taken from one place to another?… How did the blood of the victims become intermingled with his in the Bronco? I don’t know. But with… lax police security… it COULD have happened.’ (Pg. 353)
He adds, “A lot of criticism has been directed toward the jury on reaching a verdict so quickly. I was just as stunned by the speed of the verdict as anyone else… But jurors… heard Fuhrman impeach himself, and they heard Vannatter deny O.J, had been an early suspect. They listened as Dr. Lee said, ‘Something wrong.’ And they saw O.J. try on the murderer’s glove, which did not fit.” (Pg. 354)
He concludes, “I haven’t seen or talked to Johnnie Cochran since immediately after the verdict, and I was not included on the list of those invited to attend a Christmas celebration with the jurors… I acknowledge the strength of [Cochran’s] ability… However, I won’t work with him again.” (Pg. 359)
Shapiro makes the best version of his case for ‘reasonable doubt’ in this book. But is it… persuasive?
Robert Shapiro (b. 1942) has defended a number of prominent people (e.g., Erik Menendez, the Kardashian family), but he is probably best-known for his being a prominent member of the ‘Dream Team’ that successfully defended O.J. Simpson in his murder trial.
He wrote in the Prologue to this 1996 book, “The most frequent question a defense attorney is asked … is, ‘How do you sleep at night?’ … The second thing I heard, especially from people who know me well and feel comfortable leaning on me just a bit harder, was 'In your heart, don’t you know he did it?’ My answer to the second question is simple: ‘I wasn’t there, you weren’t there. Ultimately, it is a matter to be decided by the court.’ My answer to the first question … is a little longer… I am a professional, I have a constitutionally mandated job, and I work hard at it… And so I sleep very well.” (Pg. viii, xix)
He explains, “The terms ‘Dream Team’ and ‘Trial of the Century’ didn’t come from me, and I was never comfortable with either of them. My primary focus from the beginning of the Simpson case was to vigorously defend my client and to assemble a team of experts to strengthen that defense…. Perhaps, I thought my being a white Jewish lawyer defending a black man accused of killing two white people, one of whom was Jewish… could somehow convey the message that the American system of justice is ultimately more important than any racial or religious element within it. Unfortunately, I was wrong on all counts… But even now I would argue that optimism and idealism---which keep me in this business---are difficult to sustain without sustaining some naiveté as well.” (Pg. xviii-xix)
After Simpson failed to appear for his surrender to authorities [beginning the famous ‘slow-motion chase’], Simpson friend Bob Kardashian and Shapiro together read Simpson’s handwritten note addressed ‘To my friends’; Shapiro notes, “I don’t think there was anyone in that room who didn’t believe, at that moment, that O.J. had gone off to kill himself.” (Pg. 42)
He argues, “Later there was much made of the fact that [Simpson] also had a great deal of cash, his passport, and beard-and-mustache disguise with him in the car. The theory was that he was heading for Mexico, or even farther. But through what airport, over what national border, could this man have reasonably gone?… for four days his image had been plastered on the front of every newspaper and broadcast on every television news report. The explanation was simple. The … disguise … [was] so that he could take his children on a planned trip to an amusement park without being recognized; the sizable amount of cash and passport were always with him… it was evidently O.J.’s intention that after his suicide the cash go immediately to his small children as a stopgap support measure until the larger legal matters were handled on their behalf.” (Pg. 46-47)
He reports, “We know that four detectives (Lange, Vannatter, Fuhrman and Phillips) left the crime scene at Bundy… after only a minimal, almost perfunctory, investigation, and then went to O.J.’s house at Rockingham, either because they believed that someone there was in imminent danger (according to Fuhrman) or to notify O.J. Simpson of his ex-wife’s death and the needs of his small children (according to Vannatter)… it was implausible to me that … the only four homicide detectives on a case would leave a crime scene---and let another ten hours pass before the coroner was called to the scene, which is a violation of state law… Why was the department criminalist, Dennis Fung, dispatched to Rockingham first (where no crime was known to have taken place) as opposed to Bundy (where evidence of a double homicide was everywhere?).” (Pg. 70-71)
He continues, “If, as Vannatter testified, O.J. was not then a suspect, why, when no one answered the telephone or the bell at the gate after 10 or 15 minutes, didn’t they say, ‘Let’s go back to Bundy and continue the investigation'? Instead, Fuhrman testified that he decided to take a walk around the corner and … saw the Bronco, parked at what he thought was an odd or inappropriate angle… he said he saw blood... on the driver’s door, as well as faint blood smears on the bottom of the door. Now, he decided, it was an emergency, so he scaled the fence… and they proceeded to inspect the property for hours without a warrant. They discovered O.J.’s daughter, Arnelle… The detectives woke [her] up… and told Arnelle she had to let them into the house ‘so they could search the premises.’ It’s here where the notification explanation quite obviously falls apart.” (Pg. 71)
He adds, “Ironically, if the detectives had said from the very beginning that they believed O.J. was a suspect and they were in hot pursuit, such an opinion would’ve been sufficient to allow their entry onto the property without a warrant. Instead… they built a web of lies, with Mark Fuhrman at its center. And they got caught in it.” (Pg. 73)
He recalls a conversation with Johnnie Cochran: Shapiro said, “There’s something happening that I don’t like… Race shouldn’t be an issue here.’ ‘It’s always an issue, Bob,’ Johnnie said, 'It’s an issue with everything in life.’ I just looked at him. ‘But I hoped it wouldn’t be. I BELIEVED it wouldn’t be.’ He smiled. ‘That’s because you’re not black.’” (Pg. 192)
After a bitter argument between Shapiro and defense attorney F. Lee Bailey, “Bailey stayed. Johnnie Cochran got the self-awarded Nobel Peace Prize for smoothing at least the appearance of troubled waters… Although he never admitted a thing and has repeatedly denied the charges of leaking, I never forgave him---and don’t to this day… Why Johnnie and O.J. kept him on the team is a question for them to answer. All I knew was that … I had made a commitment to a client… I meant to honor.” (Pg. 220)
He says of Cochran’s opening statement, “[He] used only fragments of the scientific evidence our experts had worked so hard to interpret and quantify. He elaborated on the crippling nature of O.J.’s arthritis, in spite of the fact that we knew O.J. had shot an exercise video three weeks before the murders.” (Pg. 230)
He states, “I had come to understand the fundamental difference in our philosophy of client representation. Johnnie always told O.J. what he wanted to hear. My position had always been that the client hired me to be the lawyer. Just as I insisted my client tell me the truth, I was determined to tell him the truth as well. It wasn’t always happily received.” (Pg. 239)
He said of Cochran’s closing statement, “the majority of the black jurors were already in our camp and Johnnie’s arguments should be addressed to those we’d felt were pro-prosecution… And then he made a terrible mistake. He linked Fuhrman, a banal, petty, mindless racist, with the most monstrous murderer of all time, Adolf Hitler. In less than a minute, he accelerated from a corrupt Los Angeles cop to the Holocaust itself, suggesting to this jury that they could stop Fuhrman, as the Germans had not stopped Hitler… It was gratuitous, inflammatory, and just plain wrong… it was completely unnecessary.” (Pg. 338-339)
He reports, “‘Every explanation that they’re desperately trying to come up with is a highly improbable influence [‘inference’?], [Barry] Scheck said. “The most likely and probable explanation is the one that is not for the timid or the faint of heart. Somebody played with this evidence!” “That’s what this case is all about, I thought. Ito had told the jury from the beginning that a defense team has no burden---they don’t have to prove anything. But we HAD proved something. We’d proved reasonable doubt.” (Pg. 339)
After the verdict, Shapiro was scheduled to be interviewed both by Barbara Walters, and Larry King. “I told Cochran that I was going to be frank on these programs… You’ve got to know what my feelings are about this. It wasn’t necessary, what you did, what you said. The Holocaust reference, the Nation of Islam guards, raising the issue of race to ask for jury nullification.” (Pg. 347)
He summarizes, “Against their ‘mountain of evidence,’ where did reasonable doubt come from? … On one hand, there’s evidence of blood in a Bronco. But the first witness who said he found the blood was found to be… a liar… Fuhrman described the glove as ‘wet and sticky.’ Eight or nine hours after it was used in a murder? Why wasn’t it dried out? Had it been stored in a moisture-retaining bag and taken from one place to another?… How did the blood of the victims become intermingled with his in the Bronco? I don’t know. But with… lax police security… it COULD have happened.’ (Pg. 353)
He adds, “A lot of criticism has been directed toward the jury on reaching a verdict so quickly. I was just as stunned by the speed of the verdict as anyone else… But jurors… heard Fuhrman impeach himself, and they heard Vannatter deny O.J, had been an early suspect. They listened as Dr. Lee said, ‘Something wrong.’ And they saw O.J. try on the murderer’s glove, which did not fit.” (Pg. 354)
He concludes, “I haven’t seen or talked to Johnnie Cochran since immediately after the verdict, and I was not included on the list of those invited to attend a Christmas celebration with the jurors… I acknowledge the strength of [Cochran’s] ability… However, I won’t work with him again.” (Pg. 359)
Shapiro makes the best version of his case for ‘reasonable doubt’ in this book. But is it… persuasive?
May 6, 2016
After seeing the recent TV miniseries of the O.J. Simpson murder trial, I am going back and reading some of the books I missed the first time around (a flood of books came out in 1996 and 1997 in the years following the end of the trial). This book is by the original lead counsel for the defense, Robert Shapiro (eventually supplanted as the leader of the defense team by Johnnie Cochran).
I found his recounting of the story to be extremely interesting and he, along with his ghost writer Larkin Warren, was able to keep the narrative clear. He does not hesitate to register his complaints about his co-counsel (famously, his longtime friendship with fellow attorney F. Lee Bailey dissolved during the trial), as well as his thoughts, both positive and negative, about how the prosecutors Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden did their jobs at the trial. I must say I really enjoyed the book. He is careful to explain the difference between being found not guilty by a jury and being innocent of committing the crime; often two entirely different things.
**#50 of 120 books pledged to read/review during 2016**
I found his recounting of the story to be extremely interesting and he, along with his ghost writer Larkin Warren, was able to keep the narrative clear. He does not hesitate to register his complaints about his co-counsel (famously, his longtime friendship with fellow attorney F. Lee Bailey dissolved during the trial), as well as his thoughts, both positive and negative, about how the prosecutors Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden did their jobs at the trial. I must say I really enjoyed the book. He is careful to explain the difference between being found not guilty by a jury and being innocent of committing the crime; often two entirely different things.
**#50 of 120 books pledged to read/review during 2016**
May 11, 2017
Ratings based on how much they contribute to the bigger picture of the OJ criminal trial. So, it's already a fairly high bar for the defense attorneys' books to contribute much thanks to (1) attorney-client privilege which filters out the juicy stuff, and (2) Schiller's American Tragedy which covertly and likely under false pretenses, got all the juicy stuff.
I have an alternate title to suggest: The Search for Justice for Robert Shapiro, Who Was Unjustly Maligned Even Though He's Actually a Great Guy and Knows So Many Celebrities.
Hardest OJ book for me to get through thus far due to all the "sidebars" on Shapiro's own largess and celebrity encounters. And cue the eye-rolling when he simply repeats and accepts OJ's questionable explanations (to be fair, I'm sure that's all OJ would authorize him to reveal due to privilege).
On the plus side, Shapiro is so concerned about his image that he at least tries to be fair in his criticism of Judge Ito and the prosecutors. His dings pale in comparison to those of Marcia Clark's. In that way, he does come across as much more professional.
Absolutely not an essential read.
I have an alternate title to suggest: The Search for Justice for Robert Shapiro, Who Was Unjustly Maligned Even Though He's Actually a Great Guy and Knows So Many Celebrities.
Hardest OJ book for me to get through thus far due to all the "sidebars" on Shapiro's own largess and celebrity encounters. And cue the eye-rolling when he simply repeats and accepts OJ's questionable explanations (to be fair, I'm sure that's all OJ would authorize him to reveal due to privilege).
On the plus side, Shapiro is so concerned about his image that he at least tries to be fair in his criticism of Judge Ito and the prosecutors. His dings pale in comparison to those of Marcia Clark's. In that way, he does come across as much more professional.
Absolutely not an essential read.
May 6, 2017
I have new respect for Robert Shapiro after reading this book. It's easy to assume that all defense lawyers are sleazy money-grubbers willing to do anything for an acquittal. Shapiro's memoir disabused me of this prejudice; he is an ethical, professional lawyer for whom loyalty and his family are his top priorities. Despite the fact that O.J. Simpson, without a doubt, was guilty, Shapiro was hired to fairly represent his client, and work to establish reasonable doubt in a court of law. That is what Shapiro, a successful lawyer, did. I can't hold it against him, and this book proves that point. Oh don't worry, Cochrane....I've got your book too.
November 8, 2025
The way that Shapiro writes this book is nothing short of phenomenal. Seeing how the defense thinks like the prosecution and uncovering each particular obstacle with a solution before it get brought to light is truly impressive. This book further shows just how much money can buy when it comes to a defense in the criminal justice system. It’s a great read for anyone who’s interested in CJ.
Side Note: You do not have to be on a particular side of the O.J. Case for this book to be enjoyable. Whether he is guilty isn’t something that makes this book exceptional. It’s the “behind the scenes” that makes this a great read.
Side Note: You do not have to be on a particular side of the O.J. Case for this book to be enjoyable. Whether he is guilty isn’t something that makes this book exceptional. It’s the “behind the scenes” that makes this a great read.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 12, 2024
The fewer book that is able to keep my hype while reading through. I spend almost an entire week just to complete this book alone, personally this is a book I would recomands to anybody. Is takes about how people dealing with stress, breakthrough point in the cases, and complete transparency seems like no sides bias while his describing the situation. Very very well-written book and thought out, reading this book is no less exciting than watching a documentary or action movie. However after 75% of the book, not that exciting anymore unfortunately
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 1, 2024
Mr. Shapiro writes a thought-provoking book, which presents a plausible argument...what a whirlwind he lived through...he just did his job, and a lot of people misunderstood him...I hope he is well now...
April 15, 2025
This was an easy read and very enlightening. I woud recommend it for anyone who loves all things O.J
April 24, 2025
Read this book a few months ago, super interesting perspective from a defense attorney, especially a high profile one. I honestly appreciated Robert Shapiro's candor in his writing
August 3, 2013
Forced by my friend Julie to see Shapiro make an appearance at Chicago's Michigan Avenue bookstore (now closed) around the time of the O.J. Trial with which Julie was obsessed. So, off we went to see Robert Shapiro who looked a bit like plastic man (makeup?) and stood among the other "fans." Once done with his reading, we attendees were each handed a yellow post-it and told to write what we wanted Shapiro to emblazone in our book (yes, I had to buy it) along with our signature. Strangely, I noticed Shapiro kept staring at Julie and, upon nearing the author, she said, "Amy, I don't know what to write!" So I grabbed her pen and Robert Shapiro signed in full for my friend, "Hello Julie! Give me a call next time you get a speeding ticket! Love, Bob"--still have yet to read the tome. But what a roar!
September 19, 2011
Great view on what happened during the O.J. Simpson trial by one of the Defense Attorney. I love how it's not meant to prove him guilty or not guilty, that it was meant for Robert's experience only. I'm passing this book to my friend, my mom, and my grandma.
December 19, 2016
Appreciate the calm and cool approach to book, however, and not surprisingly, frustrated at one sided pro defense perspective
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews