What do you think?
Rate this book
Deliberate Intent: A Lawyer Tells the True Story of Murder by the Book
Deliberate Intent is the riveting account of the landmark Hit Man case, by noted First Amendment attorney Rod Smolla, who risked reputation and career when he took on a cause that seemed to oppose his strongest beliefs.
Early in 1992, Lawrence Horn hired a contract killer to execute his ex-wife and his severely brain-damaged son. On March 3, 1992, the man he hired, James Perry, traveled to Silver Spring, Maryland, and murdered Horn's ex-wife and child and the boy's nurse. Perry used a book called Hit Man as an instruction manual for the murders. The subsequent criminal trial became known as the Hit Man case, and after Horn and Perry were convicted of murder, the victims' families surprised the nation by filing an unprecedented wrongful death suit against Paladin Press, publisher of Hit Man. In a controversial turn of events, Paladin was being blamed for the murders.
Distinguished attorney Rod Smolla, First Amendment expert and vigorous advocate of free speech, was approached to represent the victims' families in the civil suit against Paladin. Smolla initially declined, but after reading Hit Man and likening it to "a loaded pistol or a vial of poison," he decided to take on the case, even though it seemed to go against his abiding belief in the First Amendment. Smolla argued that if Paladin Press knew and intended that its murder manual Hit Man would be used in the actual planning and execution of contract killings, Paladin was not entitled to immunity under the First Amendment. In an appeal that stunned the legal world, Smolla's argument prevailed and was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Deliberate Intent is the dramatic story of the events behind this landmark case--a story that includes murder, trials, and appeals and, most important, raises fascinating and difficult questions about our most cherished freedom.
Early in 1992, Lawrence Horn hired a contract killer to execute his ex-wife and his severely brain-damaged son. On March 3, 1992, the man he hired, James Perry, traveled to Silver Spring, Maryland, and murdered Horn's ex-wife and child and the boy's nurse. Perry used a book called Hit Man as an instruction manual for the murders. The subsequent criminal trial became known as the Hit Man case, and after Horn and Perry were convicted of murder, the victims' families surprised the nation by filing an unprecedented wrongful death suit against Paladin Press, publisher of Hit Man. In a controversial turn of events, Paladin was being blamed for the murders.
Distinguished attorney Rod Smolla, First Amendment expert and vigorous advocate of free speech, was approached to represent the victims' families in the civil suit against Paladin. Smolla initially declined, but after reading Hit Man and likening it to "a loaded pistol or a vial of poison," he decided to take on the case, even though it seemed to go against his abiding belief in the First Amendment. Smolla argued that if Paladin Press knew and intended that its murder manual Hit Man would be used in the actual planning and execution of contract killings, Paladin was not entitled to immunity under the First Amendment. In an appeal that stunned the legal world, Smolla's argument prevailed and was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Deliberate Intent is the dramatic story of the events behind this landmark case--a story that includes murder, trials, and appeals and, most important, raises fascinating and difficult questions about our most cherished freedom.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published June 22, 1999
2 people are currently reading
45 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
November 2, 2014
John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty: “An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery ought to be unmolested when simply circulated in the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of the corn dealer.” So what about a book that encourages and incites people to become hitmen.
Rodney Smolla, who has written several interesting books related to the Supreme Court, was faced with a dilemma. As a strong advocate of the First Amendment, he was being asked to help sue a publisher for publishing a book. That the book had a nefarious history made it more problematic. In 1983 Paladin Press had published a book on how to become a professional hit man and the book provided a recipe of instructions on just how to do it. James Perry followed those instructions after being hired by Lawrence Horn to kill his crippled child and ex-wife. The question was whether the publisher had any liability for the actions of the thug.
Trevor was extremely disabled thanks to a mistake at the hospital where a machine he was on was accidentally knocked loose causing brain damage and a host of other problems. The hospital was successfully sued for the millions estimated to provide long-term care.
Smolla uses discussions (most likely invented) from his First Amendment class to bring the issues into focus: natural rights, Hobbes v Locke, etc. The question at the bottom of the suit was expressed well by Judge Bork who asked whether “freedom of speech is something inside or outside the social contract.” Freedom of speech derives from the social contract, so, in Bork’s view, freedom of speech cannot include the right to advocate overthrowing the social contract. Does freedom of speech permit one to encourage “people to be vigilantes, to go outside the formal governmental justice system and commit individual acts of ‘justice’ for revenge or retribution.” That was the legal question facing the publisher and his opponents.
The case bore similarities to the Hustler case and Jerry Falwell (see my review of Jerryn Falwell v Larry Flynt, also by Smolla at https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...) Just how far does the First Amendment take us in protecting the truly distasteful. (Personally, I found the parody Compari ad in Hustler to be hysterical and clever, but certainly distasteful.) The Brandenburg v Ohio case was also cited. Brandenburg was a Ku Klux Klan leader who was arrested under an Ohio syndicalism law that prohibited incitement to violence. Brandenburg was convicted but his conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court as a violation of his free speech rights. A more recent case coming after the book was written that might have applied would be Snyder v Phelps in which Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church was engaged in picketing the funerals of dead soldiers as a protest against gay rights policies.
Generally, the courts have always held that copycat behavior or emulation of a violent scene in a movie did not leave the creator or producer of the scene at risk of being held responsible for the actions that resulted from watching the depiction. The rationale behind those decisions was that the programs did not encourage such behavior. So what about a book that did?
The case of United States v Progressive might be pertinent except for the classified nature of the material in question. Progressive magazine was enjoined from publishing an article on how to build a hydrogen bomb. They had used only publicly available information. The case itself was interesting in that there were two: one in public and the other in camera, the latter one which the defendants could not attend since they refused security clearances. Their lawyers were but they were forbidden to reveal what went on in the closed session to their clients. Ultimately the suit was withdrawn by the DOE because other “secret” information had been published elsewhere and the Progressive republished their article. The issue of intent remained crucial since in the case of the Progressive and the imitative violence cases the intent of the authors was certainly not to be imitated.
The strategy of the publisher’s legal team was to stipulate that the content of the book was clearly to instruct how to kill people for profit, but both teams also agreed to stipulate that the book was available to others who might have an interest in learning about these techniques such as authors, police, etc. So rather than have a jury trial first, in an unusual move, Smolla had to argue the First Amendment issues first, rather than wait and argue them on appeal, an appeal that would have occurred no matter which side won the jury trial.
The book didn’t start off well for me. I found the insertions of class discussions irritating at first, but since the issue was fascinating, I persevered and it really took hold. Smolla does a good job of integrating the memoir of his own “come to Jesus” moment with that of Howard Spiegel and why they decided to take the case. Smolla thinks very highly of himself, a negative, but the "inside" view of how their strategy developed and the personality clashes of the lawyers adds an interesting dimension to the book. I won’t reveal the outcome of the case, but my personal take on the case is that Smolla was on the wrong side.
Rodney Smolla, who has written several interesting books related to the Supreme Court, was faced with a dilemma. As a strong advocate of the First Amendment, he was being asked to help sue a publisher for publishing a book. That the book had a nefarious history made it more problematic. In 1983 Paladin Press had published a book on how to become a professional hit man and the book provided a recipe of instructions on just how to do it. James Perry followed those instructions after being hired by Lawrence Horn to kill his crippled child and ex-wife. The question was whether the publisher had any liability for the actions of the thug.
Trevor was extremely disabled thanks to a mistake at the hospital where a machine he was on was accidentally knocked loose causing brain damage and a host of other problems. The hospital was successfully sued for the millions estimated to provide long-term care.
Smolla uses discussions (most likely invented) from his First Amendment class to bring the issues into focus: natural rights, Hobbes v Locke, etc. The question at the bottom of the suit was expressed well by Judge Bork who asked whether “freedom of speech is something inside or outside the social contract.” Freedom of speech derives from the social contract, so, in Bork’s view, freedom of speech cannot include the right to advocate overthrowing the social contract. Does freedom of speech permit one to encourage “people to be vigilantes, to go outside the formal governmental justice system and commit individual acts of ‘justice’ for revenge or retribution.” That was the legal question facing the publisher and his opponents.
The case bore similarities to the Hustler case and Jerry Falwell (see my review of Jerryn Falwell v Larry Flynt, also by Smolla at https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...) Just how far does the First Amendment take us in protecting the truly distasteful. (Personally, I found the parody Compari ad in Hustler to be hysterical and clever, but certainly distasteful.) The Brandenburg v Ohio case was also cited. Brandenburg was a Ku Klux Klan leader who was arrested under an Ohio syndicalism law that prohibited incitement to violence. Brandenburg was convicted but his conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court as a violation of his free speech rights. A more recent case coming after the book was written that might have applied would be Snyder v Phelps in which Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church was engaged in picketing the funerals of dead soldiers as a protest against gay rights policies.
Generally, the courts have always held that copycat behavior or emulation of a violent scene in a movie did not leave the creator or producer of the scene at risk of being held responsible for the actions that resulted from watching the depiction. The rationale behind those decisions was that the programs did not encourage such behavior. So what about a book that did?
The case of United States v Progressive might be pertinent except for the classified nature of the material in question. Progressive magazine was enjoined from publishing an article on how to build a hydrogen bomb. They had used only publicly available information. The case itself was interesting in that there were two: one in public and the other in camera, the latter one which the defendants could not attend since they refused security clearances. Their lawyers were but they were forbidden to reveal what went on in the closed session to their clients. Ultimately the suit was withdrawn by the DOE because other “secret” information had been published elsewhere and the Progressive republished their article. The issue of intent remained crucial since in the case of the Progressive and the imitative violence cases the intent of the authors was certainly not to be imitated.
The strategy of the publisher’s legal team was to stipulate that the content of the book was clearly to instruct how to kill people for profit, but both teams also agreed to stipulate that the book was available to others who might have an interest in learning about these techniques such as authors, police, etc. So rather than have a jury trial first, in an unusual move, Smolla had to argue the First Amendment issues first, rather than wait and argue them on appeal, an appeal that would have occurred no matter which side won the jury trial.
The book didn’t start off well for me. I found the insertions of class discussions irritating at first, but since the issue was fascinating, I persevered and it really took hold. Smolla does a good job of integrating the memoir of his own “come to Jesus” moment with that of Howard Spiegel and why they decided to take the case. Smolla thinks very highly of himself, a negative, but the "inside" view of how their strategy developed and the personality clashes of the lawyers adds an interesting dimension to the book. I won’t reveal the outcome of the case, but my personal take on the case is that Smolla was on the wrong side.
February 17, 2020
Required reading for Free Speech: Law and Policy class.
July 12, 2014
I thought this book was about a murder that I had read about in the Washington Post. A man hired a contract killer to murder his ex-wife and handicapped son. (The son's nurse died too.) It was actually more concerned with a civil suit that was filed after the actual murder trial. The contract killer used a book called "Hit Man", an instruction manual for wanna be assassins, to plan his crime. The publisher of the book raised a defense of first amendment rights. Smolla, the author, was part of the plaintiff's team which contended that printed instructions for murder were similar to aiding and abetting the crime itself. If you are interested in constitutional law and the appellate courts, you will enjoy this book.
April 2, 2012
A compelling book which I read straight through while others already partly read sat and waited.
Except for poor proofreading about quotation marks, the book is deftly developed. The author presents various points of view about lawyering throughout history through the device of classroom discussions with his students.
Even though you know from the start that his team ultimately wins, it is a bit suspenseful and he portrays his characters fully.
I'm surprised there are so few ratings for this book and this topic.
Except for poor proofreading about quotation marks, the book is deftly developed. The author presents various points of view about lawyering throughout history through the device of classroom discussions with his students.
Even though you know from the start that his team ultimately wins, it is a bit suspenseful and he portrays his characters fully.
I'm surprised there are so few ratings for this book and this topic.
June 2, 2018
Interesting, but the writer comes across as the scummy lawyer he insists lawyers aren’t. He tries to convince you he’s not being hypocritical and money-motivated, but he clearly is (and his stupid fake dialogue in classroom settings don’t really help). Some interesting insight into the legal system and court cases, but his constant trying to appeal to the reader that he’s not an asshole gets really old, as does his boring detours into his personal life.
January 23, 2016
A very interesting read, examining the legal issues around a guy who took out a contract on two other people based on some instructions he read in a manual bought out of the back of "Soldier Of Fortune" magazine. Was the magazine partly to blame for the deaths? Or the manual's author? Or both? And what kind of twisted puppy takes out a contract on a handicapped kid and his mother? The flaw in this book was the writing. It just didn't keep me turning the pages. It sort of turned into a slog by the time I was halfway through.
August 23, 2008
Fascinating story of a First Amendment case by one of the legal team involved. Deals very well with complex legal/constitutional issues, especially the concept of when speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
April 15, 2012
Fascinating true crime story that crosses the border into a discussion of the 5th amendment and the right to free speech.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews