What do you think?
Rate this book
The Trial of the Chicago 7: The Official Transcript
Republished fifty years later to coincide with the release this fall of the film of the same title written and directed by Aaron Sorkin with an all-star cast, this is the classic account of perhaps the most infamous, and definitely the most entertaining, trial in recent American history.
In the fall of 1969 eight prominent anti-Vietnam War activists were put on trial for conspiring to riot at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. One of the eight, Black Panther cofounder Bobby Seale, was literally bound and gagged in court by order of the judge, Julius Hoffman, and his case was separated from that of the others.
The activists, who included Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and Tom Hayden, and their attorneys, William Kunstler and Leonard Weinglass, insisted that the First Amendment was on trial. Their witnesses were a virtual who’s who of the 1960s counterculture: Allen Ginsberg, Timothy Leary, Arlo Guthrie, Judy Collins, Norman Mailer, among them.
The defendants constantly interrupted to protest what they felt were unfair rulings by the judge. The trial became a circus, all the while receiving intense media coverage. The convictions that resulted were subsequently overturned on appeal, but the trial remained a political and cultural touchstone, a mirror of the deep divisions in the country. The Trial of the Chicago 7 consists of the highlights from trial testimony with a brief epilogue describing what later happened to the principal figures.
In the fall of 1969 eight prominent anti-Vietnam War activists were put on trial for conspiring to riot at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. One of the eight, Black Panther cofounder Bobby Seale, was literally bound and gagged in court by order of the judge, Julius Hoffman, and his case was separated from that of the others.
The activists, who included Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and Tom Hayden, and their attorneys, William Kunstler and Leonard Weinglass, insisted that the First Amendment was on trial. Their witnesses were a virtual who’s who of the 1960s counterculture: Allen Ginsberg, Timothy Leary, Arlo Guthrie, Judy Collins, Norman Mailer, among them.
The defendants constantly interrupted to protest what they felt were unfair rulings by the judge. The trial became a circus, all the while receiving intense media coverage. The convictions that resulted were subsequently overturned on appeal, but the trial remained a political and cultural touchstone, a mirror of the deep divisions in the country. The Trial of the Chicago 7 consists of the highlights from trial testimony with a brief epilogue describing what later happened to the principal figures.
376 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 1, 1970
114 people are currently reading
1010 people want to read
About the author
Mark L. Levine
3 books6 followersMark L. Levine, one of the country's leading authorities on book contracts, is a former partner of Boston's Sullivan & Worcester LLP and has also been a publisher and book packager. He writes the Contracts Q&A column for the Authors Guild Bulletin and is the founder of www.BookContracts.com. He also conducts seminars for non-lawyers on negotiating and on contract law.
Levine has spent virtually his entire legal career drafting and negotiating a broad range of contracts. He has represented major domestic and foreign financial institutions and Fortune 500 corporations in sophisticated corporate and financial transactions in addition to representing authors and agents in publishing matters. He is a former vice president and member of the Board of Directors of the American Book Producers Association.
He is the author of three books, with total sales of more than 200,000 copies. Negotiating a Book Contract: A Guide for Authors, Agents and Lawyers is Levine's third book. He is co-editor of The Tales of Hoffman (Bantam Books 1970), a documentary of courtroom confrontations from the "Chicago 7" conspiracy trial (four printings), and The Complete Book of Bible Quotations (Pocket Books/Simon & Schuster 1986; eight printings).
He has also successfully published Picture Stories from the Bible ... in Full-Color Comic-Strip Form (over 100,000 copies sold), hardcover reprints of paperback books that were originally published in the 1940s by M.C. Gaines, one of the founders of DC comics and the father of William M. Gaines, founder of Mad Magazine.
Levine is a graduate of Columbia College, NYU School of Law (where he was a member of Law Review) and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism (where he was the recipient of the Louis and Pauline Cowan Award for Excellence in Media Management).
Levine is also an experienced voter protection attorney who has worked for progressive political candidates in New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Maryland, Missouri, Wisconsin, South Carolina, West Virginia, Florida and Mississippi.
A native of Bath, Maine, he lives in a suburb of New York City.
Levine has spent virtually his entire legal career drafting and negotiating a broad range of contracts. He has represented major domestic and foreign financial institutions and Fortune 500 corporations in sophisticated corporate and financial transactions in addition to representing authors and agents in publishing matters. He is a former vice president and member of the Board of Directors of the American Book Producers Association.
He is the author of three books, with total sales of more than 200,000 copies. Negotiating a Book Contract: A Guide for Authors, Agents and Lawyers is Levine's third book. He is co-editor of The Tales of Hoffman (Bantam Books 1970), a documentary of courtroom confrontations from the "Chicago 7" conspiracy trial (four printings), and The Complete Book of Bible Quotations (Pocket Books/Simon & Schuster 1986; eight printings).
He has also successfully published Picture Stories from the Bible ... in Full-Color Comic-Strip Form (over 100,000 copies sold), hardcover reprints of paperback books that were originally published in the 1940s by M.C. Gaines, one of the founders of DC comics and the father of William M. Gaines, founder of Mad Magazine.
Levine is a graduate of Columbia College, NYU School of Law (where he was a member of Law Review) and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism (where he was the recipient of the Louis and Pauline Cowan Award for Excellence in Media Management).
Levine is also an experienced voter protection attorney who has worked for progressive political candidates in New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Maryland, Missouri, Wisconsin, South Carolina, West Virginia, Florida and Mississippi.
A native of Bath, Maine, he lives in a suburb of New York City.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 105 reviews
August 14, 2022
This book is essentially a compilation of trial records that reveal the most details about Judge Hoffman.
Judge Julius Jennings Hoffman presided over the trial of the Chicago Conspiracy Eight. He was described by those who knew him as needing someone to pick on. Members of his staff understood submitting to that need to be part of their job. What he lacked in physical stature, he made up for in the agility and strength of his sometimes wonderfully melodramatic voice. He was known for delivering, and allegedly writing, long and scholarly opinions that suited his Victorian-era rhetoric, but this scholarship usually reflected the ability of one of his law clerks – or the professional journalists and legal writers that he hired.
"I didn't ask for this case," Hoffman said more than once in the five months of trial, but people familiar with the day-to-day workings of the federal courts of the northern district of Illinois insisted that he did ask for the case. Judge William Campbell had guided the grand jury that brought the indictments against eight demonstration leaders and eight policemen in the beginning, but in April 1969, he left the case because he considered himself to be too familiar with the evidence and to have already formed an opinion. Irving Birnbaum, Chicago counsel for the defense, immediately sent one of his staff to the federal courts to make sure that the new judge would be selected according to the required lottery procedure – judges are picked for cases in Federal District Court by putting their names on strips of paper and then pasting the strips, name side down, one on top another in shuffled order, so that when a case needs a judge, the name on the first piece of paper on top is chosen. Birnbaum was afraid that the judge that if the government was left to make the choice, it would pick Hoffman. The lottery was conducted, and Hoffman was still picked.
Although most federal judges had a great relationship with the local American Attorney's Office, Hoffman favored the prosecution exceptionally much, regardless of whether the case involved Mafia, gambling, desegregation, tax evasion, draft resistance, or a conspiracy to incite a riot. He rarely hesitated to rule in favor of his favorite party – the American government. He was noted for not granting appeal, for not delaying sentencing someone who was found guilty, and for giving the maximum sentence. When the American Civil Liberties Union tried to enter an impartial adviser in the Conspiracy case, Judge Hoffman declared: "I'm not running a school for civil rights."
Judge Hoffman had unrelenting faith in the Justice Department. This was revealed, for instance, in his hostile attitude to the demand of the defense to be given access to the government's illegal wiretap logs of defendants' telephone conversations. The defense was given only two of several logs. Since an affidavit to Judge Hoffman from Attorney General John N. Mitchell affirmed that the defendants were national security risks, Hoffman was immune to the law clerks who urged him to think about the Fourth Amendment implications of denial. "There's the Attorney General's affidavit," he always responded, gesturing toward his desk. He shrewdly postponed to the end of the trial the final part of the decision that denied the defense access to the logs and virtually annihilated the Fourth Amendment in this area for this trial.
Judge Hoffman also insisted on staying on schedule in the first or the second busiest federal district court in the nation, so he forced cases to conclusion by arm-twisting with technicalities. When he was asked by the Chicago Conspiracy Trial's defense to leave the Trial because Brunswick Corporation, in which his family were stockholders, made substantial money off defense contracts, which produced a conflict of interest for him in facing defendants whose adult lives had been devoted to antiwar activity, he refused.
According to those who had seen him in court, he was just as ready and mean, and just as domineering and just as enjoying himself when he felt himself looking good and winning less publicized cases as he would be during the Conspiracy Trial. "I imagine he would be amusing to an uninvolved onlooker," Defendant David Dellinger said, wryly.
In the summer before the trial, Hoffman received information from the media and the Justice Department's "intelligence" and became obsessed with the thought that the defendants were planning to disrupt the trial. “They're going to come in naked," he said to his staff. He entertained many other expectations of startling improprieties coming from the defendants. He talked about such a tone and attitude as if he already thought that they were guilty of contempt.
Hoffman also showed that his main weakness was that he had to have the last word. He was meeting defendants who were also determined that they must in some way, preferably public and heard round the world, have the last word. This proved to be a recipe for disaster.
THE TALES OF HOFFMAN presents the reader with an opportunity to learn more about Hoffman and see the Chicago Conspiracy Trial from his perspective. The authors have done a great job compiling and explaining transcripts. This book is interesting and informative. I highly recommend it.
Judge Julius Jennings Hoffman presided over the trial of the Chicago Conspiracy Eight. He was described by those who knew him as needing someone to pick on. Members of his staff understood submitting to that need to be part of their job. What he lacked in physical stature, he made up for in the agility and strength of his sometimes wonderfully melodramatic voice. He was known for delivering, and allegedly writing, long and scholarly opinions that suited his Victorian-era rhetoric, but this scholarship usually reflected the ability of one of his law clerks – or the professional journalists and legal writers that he hired.
"I didn't ask for this case," Hoffman said more than once in the five months of trial, but people familiar with the day-to-day workings of the federal courts of the northern district of Illinois insisted that he did ask for the case. Judge William Campbell had guided the grand jury that brought the indictments against eight demonstration leaders and eight policemen in the beginning, but in April 1969, he left the case because he considered himself to be too familiar with the evidence and to have already formed an opinion. Irving Birnbaum, Chicago counsel for the defense, immediately sent one of his staff to the federal courts to make sure that the new judge would be selected according to the required lottery procedure – judges are picked for cases in Federal District Court by putting their names on strips of paper and then pasting the strips, name side down, one on top another in shuffled order, so that when a case needs a judge, the name on the first piece of paper on top is chosen. Birnbaum was afraid that the judge that if the government was left to make the choice, it would pick Hoffman. The lottery was conducted, and Hoffman was still picked.
Although most federal judges had a great relationship with the local American Attorney's Office, Hoffman favored the prosecution exceptionally much, regardless of whether the case involved Mafia, gambling, desegregation, tax evasion, draft resistance, or a conspiracy to incite a riot. He rarely hesitated to rule in favor of his favorite party – the American government. He was noted for not granting appeal, for not delaying sentencing someone who was found guilty, and for giving the maximum sentence. When the American Civil Liberties Union tried to enter an impartial adviser in the Conspiracy case, Judge Hoffman declared: "I'm not running a school for civil rights."
Judge Hoffman had unrelenting faith in the Justice Department. This was revealed, for instance, in his hostile attitude to the demand of the defense to be given access to the government's illegal wiretap logs of defendants' telephone conversations. The defense was given only two of several logs. Since an affidavit to Judge Hoffman from Attorney General John N. Mitchell affirmed that the defendants were national security risks, Hoffman was immune to the law clerks who urged him to think about the Fourth Amendment implications of denial. "There's the Attorney General's affidavit," he always responded, gesturing toward his desk. He shrewdly postponed to the end of the trial the final part of the decision that denied the defense access to the logs and virtually annihilated the Fourth Amendment in this area for this trial.
Judge Hoffman also insisted on staying on schedule in the first or the second busiest federal district court in the nation, so he forced cases to conclusion by arm-twisting with technicalities. When he was asked by the Chicago Conspiracy Trial's defense to leave the Trial because Brunswick Corporation, in which his family were stockholders, made substantial money off defense contracts, which produced a conflict of interest for him in facing defendants whose adult lives had been devoted to antiwar activity, he refused.
According to those who had seen him in court, he was just as ready and mean, and just as domineering and just as enjoying himself when he felt himself looking good and winning less publicized cases as he would be during the Conspiracy Trial. "I imagine he would be amusing to an uninvolved onlooker," Defendant David Dellinger said, wryly.
In the summer before the trial, Hoffman received information from the media and the Justice Department's "intelligence" and became obsessed with the thought that the defendants were planning to disrupt the trial. “They're going to come in naked," he said to his staff. He entertained many other expectations of startling improprieties coming from the defendants. He talked about such a tone and attitude as if he already thought that they were guilty of contempt.
Hoffman also showed that his main weakness was that he had to have the last word. He was meeting defendants who were also determined that they must in some way, preferably public and heard round the world, have the last word. This proved to be a recipe for disaster.
THE TALES OF HOFFMAN presents the reader with an opportunity to learn more about Hoffman and see the Chicago Conspiracy Trial from his perspective. The authors have done a great job compiling and explaining transcripts. This book is interesting and informative. I highly recommend it.
January 26, 2021
ahhhh I have a million thoughts about this book so this is going to be the longest review I have ever written. I had never heard of the Chicago Seven or the riots at the ‘68 democratic national convention until I watched Aaron Sorkin’s movie. The film is great and I recommend it - you’re always on the edge of your seat and it’s a story you can hardly believe. But while you watch it, you can really feel the romanticization of certain characters/moments and I couldn’t help but wonder how much was actually true. I started reading around online about the trial and when that wasn’t enough I decided to get my first ever audiobook - this book.
What happens in the trial is definitely way wilder and more horrifying than what happens in the movie, if only for the reason that nobody can possibly fit an absolutely bizarre 4.5 month trial into 2 hours. The editors did a terrific job condensing the trial into its most important pieces. Every moment in the 10 hours was relevant and interesting, and I was laughing during a lot of it because either the defense was so funny or I was laughing out of sheer disbelief that any of this actually happened. Many of the statements by the defense and their witnesses were articulated beautifully and really made me think not only about their specific time but also what is happening in the United States today. The nation is still run as an unjust police state with major inequities being exacerbated by an unfair and corrupt judicial system that targets dissenting and marginalized groups. You can see plainly in how BLM versus the insurrectionists have been treated by politicians, the police, and judges. It makes you wonder if we’ve even made any progress of the last 50 years :/
I’m not a lawyer/in law but this is definitely not difficult for anyone outside the profession. If you’re interested in cultural revolution and reading about absolutely absurdity in the oddest trial you can imagine then you should read! this! book!!!!!!!!
What happens in the trial is definitely way wilder and more horrifying than what happens in the movie, if only for the reason that nobody can possibly fit an absolutely bizarre 4.5 month trial into 2 hours. The editors did a terrific job condensing the trial into its most important pieces. Every moment in the 10 hours was relevant and interesting, and I was laughing during a lot of it because either the defense was so funny or I was laughing out of sheer disbelief that any of this actually happened. Many of the statements by the defense and their witnesses were articulated beautifully and really made me think not only about their specific time but also what is happening in the United States today. The nation is still run as an unjust police state with major inequities being exacerbated by an unfair and corrupt judicial system that targets dissenting and marginalized groups. You can see plainly in how BLM versus the insurrectionists have been treated by politicians, the police, and judges. It makes you wonder if we’ve even made any progress of the last 50 years :/
I’m not a lawyer/in law but this is definitely not difficult for anyone outside the profession. If you’re interested in cultural revolution and reading about absolutely absurdity in the oddest trial you can imagine then you should read! this! book!!!!!!!!
January 20, 2021
The judge was shockingly horrible. Really makes you think about the US judicial system and it’s many flaws. I recommend watching the movie on Netflix first since this is transcripts and it makes more sense when you understand the story.
May 24, 2021
this is genuinely the most batshit non-fiction book i've read in my entire life
October 20, 2020
I read this when I was in my teens. (It was my father's.) At the time, I had a very trusting impression of the American justice system. This book shocked me. I imagine it's still pretty shocking now.
May 26, 2021
This is a verbatim record of the trial of the Chicago 7. How the heck do you rate a word for word transcript of a trial?
Do I recommend: 5/5
Is this informative: 5/5
Is the judge a POS: 5/5 (or is it 1/5 since he sucks?)
Will I get mad while reading this: yep.
At least have all of the social issues from 1969 addressed in this trial been resolved now that it's 2021: 😐
Do I recommend: 5/5
Is this informative: 5/5
Is the judge a POS: 5/5 (or is it 1/5 since he sucks?)
Will I get mad while reading this: yep.
At least have all of the social issues from 1969 addressed in this trial been resolved now that it's 2021: 😐
February 7, 2022
This trial was wild. The book is the highlights of the official transcript of the trial. The judge is a loose cannon, so are the lawyers and the defendants. It’s basically complete chaos. If social media was around during this trial, the internet woulda gone nuts. Highly recommend if you enjoy true crime or social/political history.
February 26, 2021
Abbie Hoffman and his incredible persona made me read this book. The trial was a big theater of the absurd and the judge made me mad every single time he opened his mouth. But the defense team was incredible, such a dream team.
October 31, 2020
I was not in the US during the Chicago Democratic Convention of 1968; I was serving as a Infantry Officer in Korea so only 'saw' the protests from afar. But even from that vantage point, the protests were seen by me and my fellow servicemen exactly as that, protests not riots and if there was chaos and tear gas and bloodshed, the responsibility lay with the police generally and Mayor Daley specifically.
I was back in the US during the trial, out of the Army and not paying attention; I did not allow the drumbeat of reporting about the trial (or much else) get through to the life I was carefully constructing. Yes, I was aware there was a trial; yes, I knew there were questionable actions taken by the judge; and yes, I knew the defendants were found guilty (I thought all, which confirms how detached I was). And yes, Bobby Seale's treatment was horrific. But the trial did not change the shape of my world view.
Today, however, The Trial of the Chicago 7, edited by Mark Levine, George McNamee, and Danny Greenberg has created a profound difference in how I see the world, this country, those with power and those without (Full disclosure: I count Danny and Mark as close friends).
There is much to like about this book, which is in itself remarkable as court transcripts are by nature overly verbose and bland - the real world of courts does not contain the crisp dialogue of Law and Order let alone the extraordinary wordplay that Aaron Sorkin wrote for the movie. Yet the editors have mined some real gold from the 20,000 pages, including many nuggets of humor such as Judge Hoffman's inability to keep Defense Attorney Leonard Weinglass' name straight or the defendants beating the Judge to the punch when they unanimously say. "Overruled" on several occasions. And there is the humor of derision that plays a big part throughout the five months of the trial - right up to the last days. Two other highlights come early in the trial. First, two jurors are excused because in each case their parents have received a threatening letter. I was struck as I was reading this at how flimsy the threat was and how quickly the Judge excused the two jurors and, by inference, was only left wondering what arm of government was interfering. The second was the horror of the daily indignities of Bobby Seale being chained and gagged in the courtroom for what seemed countless days until his part of the case was declared a mistrial. The line from those scenes to today is too straight for the reader to wonder anything other than where they stand in relation to America's original sin. I think for most it is anything but pleasant.
The case seems to have turned on the testimony of the police and FBI made all the easier by Judge Hoffman's ceaseless intervention on behalf of the prosecution. The editors brought this aspect of the trial to the front - and after reading page after page it is chilling. This is not the justice we learned. The defendants' case was equally hindered by Judge Hoffman. It appears the editors were selecting those elements of testimony, which seemed in most cases to have been hindered by the prosecution, whose actions were abetted by judge, that would show the state of mind among the defendants was to create a protest movement at the Convention, not a riot. Given that the defense team was not permitted to cross examine the prosecution witnesses effectively, the reader concludes, it seems to me, that this was the one avenue left. And that avenue was all too readily blocked by Judge Hoffman. Messrs. Levine, Greenberg, and McNamee use their edits of the transcripts surrounding the defense efforts to treat Mayor Daley as a hostile witness and call former Attorney General Ramsey Clark to the stand for testimony before the jury to underscore this point.
At the end the defendants (well, not Froines and Weiner) are found guilty. Each is permitted to make a statement to the court, and it was here that I was most disappointed, not with the book or its editing but with the statements themselves. I thought that Dellinger's and Hoffman's stand up to the test of time, less so for the others.
The book was first released under the title The Tales of Hoffman. And Judge Hoffman remains at the center of the book - the trial - and all that surrounds it. He seemed to have ranged from completely obtuse and clueless, to monomaniacal and consciously evil, to pitiable and old. This is perhaps best brought out at the end of the book after the verdicts and sentencing. I think it was critical to have included this section as it so clearly underscores the pettiness and complete lack of understanding of the issues he was facing – and by extension the country was facing.
I was back in the US during the trial, out of the Army and not paying attention; I did not allow the drumbeat of reporting about the trial (or much else) get through to the life I was carefully constructing. Yes, I was aware there was a trial; yes, I knew there were questionable actions taken by the judge; and yes, I knew the defendants were found guilty (I thought all, which confirms how detached I was). And yes, Bobby Seale's treatment was horrific. But the trial did not change the shape of my world view.
Today, however, The Trial of the Chicago 7, edited by Mark Levine, George McNamee, and Danny Greenberg has created a profound difference in how I see the world, this country, those with power and those without (Full disclosure: I count Danny and Mark as close friends).
There is much to like about this book, which is in itself remarkable as court transcripts are by nature overly verbose and bland - the real world of courts does not contain the crisp dialogue of Law and Order let alone the extraordinary wordplay that Aaron Sorkin wrote for the movie. Yet the editors have mined some real gold from the 20,000 pages, including many nuggets of humor such as Judge Hoffman's inability to keep Defense Attorney Leonard Weinglass' name straight or the defendants beating the Judge to the punch when they unanimously say. "Overruled" on several occasions. And there is the humor of derision that plays a big part throughout the five months of the trial - right up to the last days. Two other highlights come early in the trial. First, two jurors are excused because in each case their parents have received a threatening letter. I was struck as I was reading this at how flimsy the threat was and how quickly the Judge excused the two jurors and, by inference, was only left wondering what arm of government was interfering. The second was the horror of the daily indignities of Bobby Seale being chained and gagged in the courtroom for what seemed countless days until his part of the case was declared a mistrial. The line from those scenes to today is too straight for the reader to wonder anything other than where they stand in relation to America's original sin. I think for most it is anything but pleasant.
The case seems to have turned on the testimony of the police and FBI made all the easier by Judge Hoffman's ceaseless intervention on behalf of the prosecution. The editors brought this aspect of the trial to the front - and after reading page after page it is chilling. This is not the justice we learned. The defendants' case was equally hindered by Judge Hoffman. It appears the editors were selecting those elements of testimony, which seemed in most cases to have been hindered by the prosecution, whose actions were abetted by judge, that would show the state of mind among the defendants was to create a protest movement at the Convention, not a riot. Given that the defense team was not permitted to cross examine the prosecution witnesses effectively, the reader concludes, it seems to me, that this was the one avenue left. And that avenue was all too readily blocked by Judge Hoffman. Messrs. Levine, Greenberg, and McNamee use their edits of the transcripts surrounding the defense efforts to treat Mayor Daley as a hostile witness and call former Attorney General Ramsey Clark to the stand for testimony before the jury to underscore this point.
At the end the defendants (well, not Froines and Weiner) are found guilty. Each is permitted to make a statement to the court, and it was here that I was most disappointed, not with the book or its editing but with the statements themselves. I thought that Dellinger's and Hoffman's stand up to the test of time, less so for the others.
The book was first released under the title The Tales of Hoffman. And Judge Hoffman remains at the center of the book - the trial - and all that surrounds it. He seemed to have ranged from completely obtuse and clueless, to monomaniacal and consciously evil, to pitiable and old. This is perhaps best brought out at the end of the book after the verdicts and sentencing. I think it was critical to have included this section as it so clearly underscores the pettiness and complete lack of understanding of the issues he was facing – and by extension the country was facing.
September 15, 2021
This trial was BANANAS. B-A-N-A-N-A-S.
An unbelievably petty judge, soul-weary defense lawyers, folk songs at the witness stand; it was bonkers. I listened to the audiobook (read by a slew of A-list actors) after watching the film and I feel like the film was kind of tame in comparison to the actual ridiculousness that transpired in that courtroom, though the listening of it obviously wasn't as gripping as the dramatic timing of the film's screenplay. I found it amazing that some of the events and arguments made then could be so relevant to events and arguments still being made today. Things like the government prosecution's closing statement arguing that the police could never be the "bad guys" and to say so was slander against every law enforcement officer in the country. I was also reminded of Trump's rhetoric about how he wished we could still deal with protestors like we used to in "the good old days" and realizing that this was what he was talking about. Particularly inspiring, I felt, were the closing statements of the defense as well as the statements made by each defendant as they faced sentencing for contempt.
An unbelievably petty judge, soul-weary defense lawyers, folk songs at the witness stand; it was bonkers. I listened to the audiobook (read by a slew of A-list actors) after watching the film and I feel like the film was kind of tame in comparison to the actual ridiculousness that transpired in that courtroom, though the listening of it obviously wasn't as gripping as the dramatic timing of the film's screenplay. I found it amazing that some of the events and arguments made then could be so relevant to events and arguments still being made today. Things like the government prosecution's closing statement arguing that the police could never be the "bad guys" and to say so was slander against every law enforcement officer in the country. I was also reminded of Trump's rhetoric about how he wished we could still deal with protestors like we used to in "the good old days" and realizing that this was what he was talking about. Particularly inspiring, I felt, were the closing statements of the defense as well as the statements made by each defendant as they faced sentencing for contempt.
September 16, 2021
The perfect accompaniment to the movie. It was great to get a bit more context, which both gave me a better understanding and helped me appreciate the film more. J.K. Simmons was awesome as the judge, as was who ever read for Kunstler. I can't find his name anywhere but he added a lot of emotion and intensity. This was an amazing listen.
February 20, 2023
i wanna make people who call the court system just read this book. no but for real, the actions of every powerful actor in this situation were reprehensible, and the worst part is, it all happened in broad daylight. i hope i have an ounce of the will these defendants & their lawyers did and maybe—just maybe—i’ll be able to do something with it.
March 3, 2021
I genuinely don't know why this was so good to read (well, listen to, I got this on audiobook) but this was really good. And knowing that it's all real is something else.
#ReadHarder
#ReadHarder
June 2, 2023
All of the highlights of the trial, makes it hard to follow sometimes due to the nature of simplifying court docs. But overall insane trial, judge said it’s wack a doodle time
July 19, 2025
this trial will infuriate you. thankfully, I had already read most of the appellate opinion overturning this verdict, and the contempt charges from Judge Hoffman. so egregious.
September 3, 2024
This transcript is a veritable who's who of personalities of the 1960s. From the defendants to the witnesses to the defense attorneys, the proceedings read like a novel (and even include actual novelists like Norman Mailer). Many thanks to the editors for shifting through tens of thousands of pages from the case and putting it out there in a digestible volume.
January 14, 2016
This is one of the better books i have read this year.I took interest in it because both my parents participated in the protests which turned into a historic event. The 1968 Democratic National Convention was held in Chicago in late August—convened to select the party's candidates for the November 1968 Presidential election. Prior to and during the convention—which took place at the International Amphitheatre—rallies, demonstrations, marches, and attempted marches took place on the streets and in the lakefront parks, about five miles away from the convention site. These activities were primarily in protest of President Lyndon B. Johnson's policies for the Vietnam War, policies which were vigorously contested during the presidential primary campaign and inside the convention.
Anti-war groups had petitioned the city of Chicago for permits to march five miles from the central business district (the Loop) to within sight of the convention site, to hold a number of rallies in the lakefront parks and also near the convention, and to camp in Lincoln Park. The city denied all permits, except for one afternoon rally at the old bandshell at the south end of Grant Park. The city also enforced an 11:00 pm curfew in Lincoln Park. Confrontations with protesters ensued as the police enforced the curfew, stopped attempts to march to the International Amphitheatre, and cleared crowds from the streets.
The Grant Park rally on Wednesday, August 28, 1968, was attended by about 15,000 protesters, while other actions involved hundreds or thousands. After the large rally, several thousand protesters attempted to march to the International Amphitheatre, but were stopped in front of the Conrad Hilton Hotel, where the presidential candidates and their campaigns were headquartered. Police moves to push the protesters out of the street were accompanied by tear gas, verbal and physical confrontation, frequent use of police batons to beat people, rocks and bottles thrown by protesters, damage to private commercial property by protesters, and scores of arrests. The television networks broadcast footage of these clashes, cutting away from the nominating speeches for the presidential candidates.
Over the course of five days and nights, the police made arrests, in addition to using tear gas, Mace, and batons on the marchers. Hundreds of police officers and protesters were injured. Dozens of journalists covering the actions were also clubbed by police or had cameras smashed and film confiscated. In the aftermath of what was later characterized as a "police riot" by the U.S. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, a federal grand jury indicted eight demonstrators and eight police officers. The conspiracy trial that followed was a complete circus and exemplified how the court system can be manipulated by powerful governmental and political influences. After a trial resulting in both acquittals and convictions, followed by appeals, reversals, and retrials, there were some final convictions of the other seven, but none of them were ultimately sentenced to jail or fines.
Anti-war groups had petitioned the city of Chicago for permits to march five miles from the central business district (the Loop) to within sight of the convention site, to hold a number of rallies in the lakefront parks and also near the convention, and to camp in Lincoln Park. The city denied all permits, except for one afternoon rally at the old bandshell at the south end of Grant Park. The city also enforced an 11:00 pm curfew in Lincoln Park. Confrontations with protesters ensued as the police enforced the curfew, stopped attempts to march to the International Amphitheatre, and cleared crowds from the streets.
The Grant Park rally on Wednesday, August 28, 1968, was attended by about 15,000 protesters, while other actions involved hundreds or thousands. After the large rally, several thousand protesters attempted to march to the International Amphitheatre, but were stopped in front of the Conrad Hilton Hotel, where the presidential candidates and their campaigns were headquartered. Police moves to push the protesters out of the street were accompanied by tear gas, verbal and physical confrontation, frequent use of police batons to beat people, rocks and bottles thrown by protesters, damage to private commercial property by protesters, and scores of arrests. The television networks broadcast footage of these clashes, cutting away from the nominating speeches for the presidential candidates.
Over the course of five days and nights, the police made arrests, in addition to using tear gas, Mace, and batons on the marchers. Hundreds of police officers and protesters were injured. Dozens of journalists covering the actions were also clubbed by police or had cameras smashed and film confiscated. In the aftermath of what was later characterized as a "police riot" by the U.S. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, a federal grand jury indicted eight demonstrators and eight police officers. The conspiracy trial that followed was a complete circus and exemplified how the court system can be manipulated by powerful governmental and political influences. After a trial resulting in both acquittals and convictions, followed by appeals, reversals, and retrials, there were some final convictions of the other seven, but none of them were ultimately sentenced to jail or fines.
December 27, 2021
The title and description are both misleading for this audiobook. This is not a transcript of the trial; this is a carefully curated selection of excerpts from the trial transcript. I expected this much going in, since the trial lasted all day every day for several months. What I was NOT expecting was to find that virtually every excerpt would be a highlight of interactions involving Judge Hoffman. You are not going to learn the facts of the case here. You will, instead, learn what an utter bafoon Judge Hoffman was, and how crazy and unprofessional the courtroom frequently became. If you've seen the movie (and you should see it- it's fantastic), then you already know this part. Was it eye-opening and interesting to hear the Hoffman-related selections? Yes. Was it well read by the amazing superstar actors involved? Absolutely.
But... after already getting a flavor of the trial's injustices and antics from reading about it online and watching the movie, I was really hoping that something billing itself as The Official Transcript would be, you know, the actual transcript. I was hoping to get more into the weeds about what evidence was presented, how the sides ran their cases, who testified to what, etc. The less-sexy stuff that you don't get in a Wikipedia article. That did not happen here.
It was still worth a listen, I guess, but I really wish it had been advertised correctly so that I could go in with proper expectations. In the closing they say that this was originally going to be called something else like Judge Hoffman On Trial (it was better than that but I can't remember), and I think that would have been a much more appropriate title.
In short, if you want to read the trial transcript, don't bother. If you want to read about a truly terrible judge, read on.
But... after already getting a flavor of the trial's injustices and antics from reading about it online and watching the movie, I was really hoping that something billing itself as The Official Transcript would be, you know, the actual transcript. I was hoping to get more into the weeds about what evidence was presented, how the sides ran their cases, who testified to what, etc. The less-sexy stuff that you don't get in a Wikipedia article. That did not happen here.
It was still worth a listen, I guess, but I really wish it had been advertised correctly so that I could go in with proper expectations. In the closing they say that this was originally going to be called something else like Judge Hoffman On Trial (it was better than that but I can't remember), and I think that would have been a much more appropriate title.
In short, if you want to read the trial transcript, don't bother. If you want to read about a truly terrible judge, read on.
Currently reading
October 26, 2020Here's what Kirkus said about the book in its pre-publication review last month:
"Thoughtfully assembled chronicle of the trial of seven anti-war activists in 1969 and 1970....The transcript, edited by three lawyers, gives a nearly blow-by-blow account of the principal moments in the proceedings, which are both entertaining and sobering. Given that 2020 is shaping up to be another 1968, this is an invaluable—and timely—historical document."
And for a great op-ed on the movie, the trial and the book, see my co-editor Danny Greenberg's op-ed that was posted Sunday on cnn.com: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/23/opinio...
Mark L. Levine, co-editor
The Trial of the Chicago 7: The Official Transcript
"Thoughtfully assembled chronicle of the trial of seven anti-war activists in 1969 and 1970....The transcript, edited by three lawyers, gives a nearly blow-by-blow account of the principal moments in the proceedings, which are both entertaining and sobering. Given that 2020 is shaping up to be another 1968, this is an invaluable—and timely—historical document."
And for a great op-ed on the movie, the trial and the book, see my co-editor Danny Greenberg's op-ed that was posted Sunday on cnn.com: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/23/opinio...
Mark L. Levine, co-editor
The Trial of the Chicago 7: The Official Transcript
December 6, 2020
Transcripts are a bit difficult for me to read, but, whoah, this trial was an absolute joke. There are so many times that I want to smack the judge. It's so strange that the problems they were having back in the 60s are the exact same problems we are having now in 2020. Whatever happened to learning from our history?
And I can't believe all the famous people who were called as witnesses? Not really sure how they got approved to be on the witness list, but I'm not a lawyer and don't understand how all that works.
And I can't believe all the famous people who were called as witnesses? Not really sure how they got approved to be on the witness list, but I'm not a lawyer and don't understand how all that works.
December 20, 2020
This is an amazing history lesson. I was not familiar with the details of this trial...I mean, I've heard some about the whole incident but wasn't aware of all the details. Listening to this is a revelation. It is so perfectly done and amazing. The cast is reading the actual trial transcript, the ultimate non-fiction. The editors took 9,000 pages of transcript and picked the most important areas. I'm sure the book of this is also fantastic but the cast that reads this audio will blow your socks off. Give it a listen.
September 17, 2025
TL;DR - Beyond its historical significance, the book is a phenomenal work that edits a captivating and shocking event into a surprisingly accessible, profoundly gripping narrative. I highly recommend it.
October 19, 2021
All I can say is...wow. I know a lot less of the history here than I should. This is a seriously edited version of the transcript, but the things that are here are all drawn directly from the transcript of the trial. It's eye-opening for sure.
I don't condone the actions of the men who were on trial. I'm fairly sure that inciting a riot was their hoped for outcome. What turned my stomach, though, was the behavior of the judge. He was adamantly opposed to the defense through the whole case. He barely listens to their arguments. He sustains every objection of the prosecution, often without a reason for the objection being given or any explanation of why the objection should be sustained. To a degree, he's correct; he doesn't have to explain his reasoning. However, he won't help them to avoid issues either when there are repeat problems. He also uses "misremembering" one of the attorney's names (Weinglass) as Weinstein, Weinberg, and most often Weinruss. The other defense attorney, William Kunstler, also has to frequently correct pronunciation of his name. In both cases, this went on for 4 1/2 months. At the same time, Hoffman, the judge, Julius, not Abby Hoffman, the defendant, was overly concerned with the lack of respect for the court, complaining constantly about people laughing at him as the butt of comments and clearing people out of the courtroom for clapping when one of the defendants or the defense attorneys said something notable. "There will be no clapping!" He repeatedly makes reference to forthcoming contempt sentences for all of the defendants and both of the defense attorneys. When the sentences came down they ranged from 6 months to 4 1/2 years. These were all later overturned because of what the appeals court recognized later as overreaction and overreach by Hoffman. While several of the defendants were held in contempt, they were all for much smaller sentences and many fewer counts.
This was pretty intense stuff. I suggest the audible presentation along with the reading. The cast, JK Simmons, Jeff Daniels, Christopher Jackson, and many others, did a wonderful job of presenting the action of the court. It's engaging. Of course they whittled over 22,000 pages down to what we have here at 384 pages, but it's never less than entertaining courtroom interaction.
Anyway, I really enjoyed this. Your mileage may vary.
I don't condone the actions of the men who were on trial. I'm fairly sure that inciting a riot was their hoped for outcome. What turned my stomach, though, was the behavior of the judge. He was adamantly opposed to the defense through the whole case. He barely listens to their arguments. He sustains every objection of the prosecution, often without a reason for the objection being given or any explanation of why the objection should be sustained. To a degree, he's correct; he doesn't have to explain his reasoning. However, he won't help them to avoid issues either when there are repeat problems. He also uses "misremembering" one of the attorney's names (Weinglass) as Weinstein, Weinberg, and most often Weinruss. The other defense attorney, William Kunstler, also has to frequently correct pronunciation of his name. In both cases, this went on for 4 1/2 months. At the same time, Hoffman, the judge, Julius, not Abby Hoffman, the defendant, was overly concerned with the lack of respect for the court, complaining constantly about people laughing at him as the butt of comments and clearing people out of the courtroom for clapping when one of the defendants or the defense attorneys said something notable. "There will be no clapping!" He repeatedly makes reference to forthcoming contempt sentences for all of the defendants and both of the defense attorneys. When the sentences came down they ranged from 6 months to 4 1/2 years. These were all later overturned because of what the appeals court recognized later as overreaction and overreach by Hoffman. While several of the defendants were held in contempt, they were all for much smaller sentences and many fewer counts.
This was pretty intense stuff. I suggest the audible presentation along with the reading. The cast, JK Simmons, Jeff Daniels, Christopher Jackson, and many others, did a wonderful job of presenting the action of the court. It's engaging. Of course they whittled over 22,000 pages down to what we have here at 384 pages, but it's never less than entertaining courtroom interaction.
Anyway, I really enjoyed this. Your mileage may vary.
November 12, 2024
The actual trial this book is taken from lasted 4 1/2 months with a 22,000-page transcript. It included a veritable who's who of the pop culture figures of the time as witnesses and included Ramsey Clark, former attorney general. This is necessarily a greatly edited and condensed version of the transcript. It is taken from the original transcript and contains the actual words of the participants. This was a landmark case at the time. The defendants became symbols of the youth movement for change in society and outspoken voices against the Vietnam War. An eighth defendant, Bobby Seale, represented the Black Panthers and had little to do with the riots the others were charged with. He was singled out and tried without his attorney present. At one point, he was gagged and shackled in the court. The trial was political and designed to take attention away from the brutality of the Chicago police by making the defendants scapegoats. It turned into a circus with Allen Ginsburg reciting a poem on the witness stand and other witnesses being warned not to sing. For me, the saddest part of this book is realizing that their dreams of a fair and equitable future for the US have now been completely demolished. The defendants foresaw their movement and their conviction as the beginning of a new and better America. They imagined millions of youth joining together to create a land where people of any color, gender, sexual orientation, or social status would have free and equal access to the American Dream. Sadly, that dream has not only not materialized, it has now potentially been voted out of existence. (A brief note about the Aaron Sorkin movie: The movie took many dramatic liberties while telling the story. The movie did show the atmosphere and unfair nature of the trial, but to get an accurate account, I recommend reading this book.)
January 17, 2025
This is a "radio play" style performance of the official transcript from the Trial of the Chicago 7 (Bobby Seals, Abbby Hoffman, et al). And I have no words that can recommend it highly enough.
You know how bigots perpetrate acts of such blatant discrimination that it makes you want to rip their throats out, but camouflage it so that if it were looked at out-of-context, it would appear perfectly reasonable? This is the transcript of a trail that was four-and-a-half months of THAT.
Have you ever heard anyone say, "Well, they were convicted in a court of law, and our courts are fair, so....." I you have ever heard or felt that, LISTEN TO THIS.
If you are weak of heart and feel like "Ooooo, this isn't for me. Too much hard core conflict. Too much shocking racism. Can't handle it," LISTEN TO IT. It is our duty to see how power can be welded tyrannically, accompanied by a self-confident and superior smirk. How people can profess patriotism and pure hearts while they pretend to be victims to their victims. AND to see how it can be stood up to. Because a lot of standing up is necessary in our own times.
On another note, this book also provides a glimpse into the hippie lifestyle and the Yipie party that enriched my understanding of the "generation gap" that was so often spoken of when I was young in the early 70s.
Please message me if you read it!
You know how bigots perpetrate acts of such blatant discrimination that it makes you want to rip their throats out, but camouflage it so that if it were looked at out-of-context, it would appear perfectly reasonable? This is the transcript of a trail that was four-and-a-half months of THAT.
Have you ever heard anyone say, "Well, they were convicted in a court of law, and our courts are fair, so....." I you have ever heard or felt that, LISTEN TO THIS.
If you are weak of heart and feel like "Ooooo, this isn't for me. Too much hard core conflict. Too much shocking racism. Can't handle it," LISTEN TO IT. It is our duty to see how power can be welded tyrannically, accompanied by a self-confident and superior smirk. How people can profess patriotism and pure hearts while they pretend to be victims to their victims. AND to see how it can be stood up to. Because a lot of standing up is necessary in our own times.
On another note, this book also provides a glimpse into the hippie lifestyle and the Yipie party that enriched my understanding of the "generation gap" that was so often spoken of when I was young in the early 70s.
Please message me if you read it!
July 27, 2021
My biggest note: I don't think one would glean much from this without either seeing the Aaron Sorkin movie or knowing a lot about the trial. There's almost nothing in the way of preliminary exposition, and many pieces of the transcript appear with little to no context.
My second biggest note: When you have a 22,000 page transcript for a trial, you of course edit quite a bit for a book like this. The editing here focuses on Judge Hoffman's many errors, biases, and discriminatory judgements against the defendants and their lawyers (as it should). But some of those errors don't need the amount of repetition provided. About the fifth time the judge misnamed defense lawyer Weinglass, I got the point --- I didn't need more examples. And there's a huge emphasis on the interplay between Judge Hoffman and defense attorney Kunstler. Granted, there's some choice interplay there, but the result is a work where the defendants tend to disappear at times.
The middle of the book lacks narrative, as the editing tends to emphasize the anecdotal. But near the end, where everyone is getting a chance to make final statements, I found the reading extremely worthwhile.
My second biggest note: When you have a 22,000 page transcript for a trial, you of course edit quite a bit for a book like this. The editing here focuses on Judge Hoffman's many errors, biases, and discriminatory judgements against the defendants and their lawyers (as it should). But some of those errors don't need the amount of repetition provided. About the fifth time the judge misnamed defense lawyer Weinglass, I got the point --- I didn't need more examples. And there's a huge emphasis on the interplay between Judge Hoffman and defense attorney Kunstler. Granted, there's some choice interplay there, but the result is a work where the defendants tend to disappear at times.
The middle of the book lacks narrative, as the editing tends to emphasize the anecdotal. But near the end, where everyone is getting a chance to make final statements, I found the reading extremely worthwhile.
January 10, 2024
I picked this up after the Aaron Sorkin movie was released. Seeing the title was originally "Tales of Hoffman" I assumed it was an edited court transcript putting the greatest hits of Abbie Hoffman front and center. After having experienced this book, however, I know that my assumption was wrong.
What is assembled here is tens-of-thousands of pages of court transcripts- abridged, edited, and assembled to cast the most critical light on the presiding judge, also named Hoffman, as was possible.
While normally I'd find such cherry-picking to be bad form, the decades since the trial have born out that the criticisms against Judge Julius Hoffman, especially during the Trial of the Chicago 7, were all mostly true. This is a picture-perfect-portrait of how not to conduct criminal proceedings as a "Governor of The Court," when it's clear that the judge was hoping it'd be an example of how not to behave at the defense table.
An infuriating collection of episodes, tableaus, and sound bites that don't offer a comprehensive history of the trial, but do paint a perplexing portrait of a deeply insecure man in the twilight of his career.
What is assembled here is tens-of-thousands of pages of court transcripts- abridged, edited, and assembled to cast the most critical light on the presiding judge, also named Hoffman, as was possible.
While normally I'd find such cherry-picking to be bad form, the decades since the trial have born out that the criticisms against Judge Julius Hoffman, especially during the Trial of the Chicago 7, were all mostly true. This is a picture-perfect-portrait of how not to conduct criminal proceedings as a "Governor of The Court," when it's clear that the judge was hoping it'd be an example of how not to behave at the defense table.
An infuriating collection of episodes, tableaus, and sound bites that don't offer a comprehensive history of the trial, but do paint a perplexing portrait of a deeply insecure man in the twilight of his career.
June 21, 2021
The best thing about this audiobook is that it proved the catalyst to pick a new one. I chose The 10 Rules of Successful Nations by Ruchir Sharma which is shaping up to be a good read.
Two stars because the topic is interesting. These are seven people charged with inciting riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention. The Vietnam,
War, assassination of Martin Luther King, and the counter culture movement all combined to fear it discontent. It came together with protests including this one in Chicago. I’d like to read more about this topic, just not by hearing an edited version of the trail’s court transcripts.
It doesn’t read as a story and really is more about courtroom antics than the history of this demonstration. I got about a fifth of the way through the book. Enough to get a sense of the judge (a pompous ass) and the defendants (a group hell bent on disrupting the court and making their points).
The forward explains this was created as a precursor to writing the screen play for the movie. I’ll go in search of a more readable book on this topic..
Two stars because the topic is interesting. These are seven people charged with inciting riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention. The Vietnam,
War, assassination of Martin Luther King, and the counter culture movement all combined to fear it discontent. It came together with protests including this one in Chicago. I’d like to read more about this topic, just not by hearing an edited version of the trail’s court transcripts.
It doesn’t read as a story and really is more about courtroom antics than the history of this demonstration. I got about a fifth of the way through the book. Enough to get a sense of the judge (a pompous ass) and the defendants (a group hell bent on disrupting the court and making their points).
The forward explains this was created as a precursor to writing the screen play for the movie. I’ll go in search of a more readable book on this topic..
June 21, 2022
I can't recommend it to everybody just because of the fact that it is a transcript. Although edited down from 23000 pages to a mere 360, it stayed interesting throughout. The constant arguing and conflict throughout the trial besides the expected lawyering was a surprise even with the previous knowledge of what happened. The only problem is that sometimes I feel as if I'm missing out on important bits of the trial with so much of it cut out. Sometimes the parts that are included are incomplete because of what wasn't included and it makes it seem like the book is just a compilation of the worst parts and the most obvious corrupted parts of the trial. Although this is still a very entertaining and important read, I don't think I can agree with it being called the official transcript.
But that was exactly what the editors wanted, they wanted to expose the corruption of the government and show people how little the justice system actually works for the politically persecuted.
But that was exactly what the editors wanted, they wanted to expose the corruption of the government and show people how little the justice system actually works for the politically persecuted.
May 5, 2021
This is pretty much a "what it says on the tin" book - it's a condensed, reorganized list of the official court transcripts from the Trial of the Chicago 7. As such, it will be confusing if you are not already pretty familiar with the story and specifics of the events of the riots at the 1968 DNC convention in Illinois.
It does a good job of pulling out important moments from the trial, and making sure to keep in some of the more humorous exchanges. There are large amounts of the transcripts left out, but given the size and space constraints, I would say the authors did as good of a job as can be expected, and there is nothing pertinent that I'm aware of that was left out.
So if you want to brush up on this part of history, go learn the broad strokes about it elsewhere first, and then this book will help to fill in the gaps. It's not an easy read, but it's an important one.
It does a good job of pulling out important moments from the trial, and making sure to keep in some of the more humorous exchanges. There are large amounts of the transcripts left out, but given the size and space constraints, I would say the authors did as good of a job as can be expected, and there is nothing pertinent that I'm aware of that was left out.
So if you want to brush up on this part of history, go learn the broad strokes about it elsewhere first, and then this book will help to fill in the gaps. It's not an easy read, but it's an important one.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 105 reviews