What do you think?
Rate this book
Anatomy of a Murder
Librarian's note: An alternate cover edition can be found here
First published by St. Martin's in 1958, Robert Traver's Anatomy of a Murder immediately became the number-one bestseller in America, and was subsequently turned into the successful and now classic Otto Preminger film. It is not only the most popular courtroom drama in American fiction, but one of the most popular novels of our time.
A gripping tale of deceit, murder, and a sensational trial, Anatomy of a Murder is unmatched in the authenticity of its settings, events, and characters. This new edition should delight both loyal fans of the past and an entire new generation of readers.
First published by St. Martin's in 1958, Robert Traver's Anatomy of a Murder immediately became the number-one bestseller in America, and was subsequently turned into the successful and now classic Otto Preminger film. It is not only the most popular courtroom drama in American fiction, but one of the most popular novels of our time.
A gripping tale of deceit, murder, and a sensational trial, Anatomy of a Murder is unmatched in the authenticity of its settings, events, and characters. This new edition should delight both loyal fans of the past and an entire new generation of readers.
437 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1958
492 people are currently reading
7350 people want to read
About the author
Robert Traver
60 books43 followersRobert Traver is the pseudonym of John Donaldson Voelker who served as the Prosecuting Attorney of Marquette County, Michigan and later as the 74th Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. He wrote many books reflecting his two passions, the law and flyfishing, Troubleshooters, Danny and the Boys and Small Town D.A.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 470 reviews
April 2, 2017
I can't believe I've never seen this book's movie; I love James Stewart. But at least this way I had no idea what was going to happen next in the book; that was nice. And, funnily enough, I still had the odd little perk of being able to hear Jimmy's voice in my head for a lot of the lines. (Oh, and Lee Remick is perfect as Laura Manion.) I have a *cough* irresistible impulse to rent the movie. Soon. (Actually, the dvd might be in my mailbox now; I just can't get to it because of ALL THE SNOW.)
This is a book that requires the right mindset. 21st century feminist prickliness has to be firmly suppressed; all the tv and movie images of young and zealous lawyers working flat out eighteen hours a day to get their clients acquitted have to be put aside. The other images from popular media, though, the ones of lawyers seizing on any slender possibility that could remotely work in their favor? Those can stay.
Well, no, the second par of that's not fair; once it gets going, everyone begins putting in those eighteen-+-hour days and falling asleep at their desks. It's only in the very beginning that the main character keeps sloping off to go fishing.
None of which is to say this isn't a terrifically fun book. It had to be made into a movie; every page screams it. It is so very late 50's, from the dialogue pattering as easy and funny and sharp as a Gene Kelly – Donald O'Connor dance routine, to Laura Manion's tight sweaters, to the big old chrome-and-fins cars you just know everyone's driving. And, of course, former DA Paul Biegler (Jimmy Stewart) (well, not in the book, except in my head) said it himself: "The case has everything. Rape, murder. Even a little dog." It's a fictionalized account of an actual trial, "written by Michigan Supreme Court Justice John D. Voelker under the pen name Robert Traver. Voelker based the novel on a 1952 murder case in which he was the defense attorney." (< Wikipedia)
It looks so simple at the beginning: When his wife Laura woke him up and to tell him she had been beaten and raped, Army Lieutenant Frederick Manion picked up his loaded Luger went out and shot the man she said did it, bartender Barney Quill. It's pretty straightforward; Laura has been and continues to be courageously open about the assault, and her husband (Manny) quite matter-of-fact about the shooting. The underlying idea is What husband worth his salt wouldn't kill the man who did that to his wife? Problem is, while perfectly human and understandable, it was still murder, and Manny's been in jail ever since, trial pending.
Former DA Paul Biegler is pulled away from his fishing to consider taking the case for the defense. He needs a case; he's not the only defense attorney in his small Michigan town, and the other one's flashier; his secretary, Maida (the perfect 50's secretary, sassy and efficient both), would like to be paid her salary, thank you. So he puts down his fishing rod and goes to the jail, and finds it a tough call: the Manions have no money. And it seems like it could be a tough sell: Laura is very frank (too frank) about Manny's jealousy, and however much empathy there can be for a man going after someone who raped his wife, within the strict letter of the law it simply was not justifiable homicide. It was revenge. Unless… Biegler's got a few tricks up his sleeve, and his old buddy Parnell has more up both of his, and between them – and some surprising items turned up as they look into the details of the case – they're ready to put up a fight to get the Lieutenant free.
I tend to doubt very many writers nowadays would quite have the gall to use phrases like Traver does. A "blouseful" indeed. And the handling of the rape and the discussion of it is … interesting, a blend of euphemism and clinical directness from everyone concerned, with almost no emotion whatsoever. The prosecution – trying to set the victim in as positive a light as possible – has no problem dismissing the rape as either irrelevant or imaginary, whichever's more convenient, and to tarnish her reputation in any way possible; the defense is concerned that Laura's beauty might tell against them, but otherwise is determined to stick her on the stand come what may. Her own reactions are the only real weak point of the book, perhaps excusable by the male first person point of view: clueless. I'd be curious to see a more impersonal viewpoint of Laura's testimony, if such a thing were possible, because if she really did exhibit the level of sang-froid that she seems to in the book, she was a stunningly tough – or toughened – woman.
That being said – and being allowed to take off an invisible half star from the rating (so on LibraryThing it's 4.5) – I enjoyed the hell out of this book. The film version was directed and produced by Otto Preminger, but – rape aside – I could easily see this as a Capra film. The blurring of right and wrong – who's lying? And why? What exactly is the truth, and should this man be allowed out of jail? – side by side with the sort of fervent idealism Jimmy Stewart should have had a patent on … again, whoever was at the helm, it's the perfect 50's movie. In a book.
Because Jimmy Stewart plays our hero in the movie, there may be little doubt going in as to how the case will turn out – but it's not that simple. It's a pitched battle, this trial, a bare-knuckle no-holds-barred brawl in which just about anything goes as long as you word it right. I've never seen or read a better revelation of the nuts and bolts of the US trial system – the mechanics of getting people to say – on and off the stand – what you as either the defense or the prosecutor need them to say, without letting out details that tip things to the other side. The head-to-head expert witnesses, the careful manipulation of the witnesses and the jury, the role of the judge and the use and formation of precedent – so that's what draws some people to the law. It has to be exhilarating. And it all comes down to a nail-biter, complete with a last-minute curveball and an epilogue that will leave you blinking.
Characterization is vivid and colorful - and so is the setting. Dialogue is natural; supernatural, actually, in its wittiness and quickness - this is the way I wish I could talk (except less chauvinistic). And the story is gripping. It's terrific.
Side note: I find this other comment from the Wikipedia entry for the movie nauseatingly unsettling: "The Lumberjack Tavern is still in existence today. The murder scene body outline is still there, although it is possibly a restoration and not the original outline." There's a picture, captioned "where the body fell":
Seriously? (And Barney actually died behind the bar, at least in the book - but that wouldn't be as much ... fun, I guess.)
This is a book that requires the right mindset. 21st century feminist prickliness has to be firmly suppressed; all the tv and movie images of young and zealous lawyers working flat out eighteen hours a day to get their clients acquitted have to be put aside. The other images from popular media, though, the ones of lawyers seizing on any slender possibility that could remotely work in their favor? Those can stay.
Well, no, the second par of that's not fair; once it gets going, everyone begins putting in those eighteen-+-hour days and falling asleep at their desks. It's only in the very beginning that the main character keeps sloping off to go fishing.
None of which is to say this isn't a terrifically fun book. It had to be made into a movie; every page screams it. It is so very late 50's, from the dialogue pattering as easy and funny and sharp as a Gene Kelly – Donald O'Connor dance routine, to Laura Manion's tight sweaters, to the big old chrome-and-fins cars you just know everyone's driving. And, of course, former DA Paul Biegler (Jimmy Stewart) (well, not in the book, except in my head) said it himself: "The case has everything. Rape, murder. Even a little dog." It's a fictionalized account of an actual trial, "written by Michigan Supreme Court Justice John D. Voelker under the pen name Robert Traver. Voelker based the novel on a 1952 murder case in which he was the defense attorney." (< Wikipedia)
It looks so simple at the beginning: When his wife Laura woke him up and to tell him she had been beaten and raped, Army Lieutenant Frederick Manion picked up his loaded Luger went out and shot the man she said did it, bartender Barney Quill. It's pretty straightforward; Laura has been and continues to be courageously open about the assault, and her husband (Manny) quite matter-of-fact about the shooting. The underlying idea is What husband worth his salt wouldn't kill the man who did that to his wife? Problem is, while perfectly human and understandable, it was still murder, and Manny's been in jail ever since, trial pending.
Former DA Paul Biegler is pulled away from his fishing to consider taking the case for the defense. He needs a case; he's not the only defense attorney in his small Michigan town, and the other one's flashier; his secretary, Maida (the perfect 50's secretary, sassy and efficient both), would like to be paid her salary, thank you. So he puts down his fishing rod and goes to the jail, and finds it a tough call: the Manions have no money. And it seems like it could be a tough sell: Laura is very frank (too frank) about Manny's jealousy, and however much empathy there can be for a man going after someone who raped his wife, within the strict letter of the law it simply was not justifiable homicide. It was revenge. Unless… Biegler's got a few tricks up his sleeve, and his old buddy Parnell has more up both of his, and between them – and some surprising items turned up as they look into the details of the case – they're ready to put up a fight to get the Lieutenant free.
I tend to doubt very many writers nowadays would quite have the gall to use phrases like Traver does. A "blouseful" indeed. And the handling of the rape and the discussion of it is … interesting, a blend of euphemism and clinical directness from everyone concerned, with almost no emotion whatsoever. The prosecution – trying to set the victim in as positive a light as possible – has no problem dismissing the rape as either irrelevant or imaginary, whichever's more convenient, and to tarnish her reputation in any way possible; the defense is concerned that Laura's beauty might tell against them, but otherwise is determined to stick her on the stand come what may. Her own reactions are the only real weak point of the book, perhaps excusable by the male first person point of view: clueless. I'd be curious to see a more impersonal viewpoint of Laura's testimony, if such a thing were possible, because if she really did exhibit the level of sang-froid that she seems to in the book, she was a stunningly tough – or toughened – woman.
That being said – and being allowed to take off an invisible half star from the rating (so on LibraryThing it's 4.5) – I enjoyed the hell out of this book. The film version was directed and produced by Otto Preminger, but – rape aside – I could easily see this as a Capra film. The blurring of right and wrong – who's lying? And why? What exactly is the truth, and should this man be allowed out of jail? – side by side with the sort of fervent idealism Jimmy Stewart should have had a patent on … again, whoever was at the helm, it's the perfect 50's movie. In a book.
Because Jimmy Stewart plays our hero in the movie, there may be little doubt going in as to how the case will turn out – but it's not that simple. It's a pitched battle, this trial, a bare-knuckle no-holds-barred brawl in which just about anything goes as long as you word it right. I've never seen or read a better revelation of the nuts and bolts of the US trial system – the mechanics of getting people to say – on and off the stand – what you as either the defense or the prosecutor need them to say, without letting out details that tip things to the other side. The head-to-head expert witnesses, the careful manipulation of the witnesses and the jury, the role of the judge and the use and formation of precedent – so that's what draws some people to the law. It has to be exhilarating. And it all comes down to a nail-biter, complete with a last-minute curveball and an epilogue that will leave you blinking.
Characterization is vivid and colorful - and so is the setting. Dialogue is natural; supernatural, actually, in its wittiness and quickness - this is the way I wish I could talk (except less chauvinistic). And the story is gripping. It's terrific.
Side note: I find this other comment from the Wikipedia entry for the movie nauseatingly unsettling: "The Lumberjack Tavern is still in existence today. The murder scene body outline is still there, although it is possibly a restoration and not the original outline." There's a picture, captioned "where the body fell":
Seriously? (And Barney actually died behind the bar, at least in the book - but that wouldn't be as much ... fun, I guess.)
July 22, 2025
Anatomy of a Murder (1958) is one of the bestsellers of American mystery fiction. No one thinks of John D. Voelker (aka Robert Traver, his pen name) as quite in the same class as the elite mystery/noir writers such as Thompson, Chandler, Hammett or Cain, but this is still so good. I also re-viewed the much-awarded film adaptation by Otto Preminger, starring Jimmy Stewart, which I also love (here’s a trailer):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rttoa....
This film is in the list of AFI's Top Ten Courtroom Dramas, in the company of others such as To Kill a Mockingbird, Witness for the Prosecution, and The Verdict), so this story really does stand the test of time.
We know from the first that there was a murder, and we know who did it right from the first, it's confessed, so most of this is courtroom drama, written by a former DA who obviously knows the territory. The murder is committed by a veteran who found his wife had been raped by a local bartender. Everyone saw him do it; he walked into the bar and pumped him with five bullets. This happens in the U.P. (the upper peninsula of the state of Michigan, an area I know well), where the judge has to warn the jury and the courtroom that if someone rapes your wife you can not take matters in your own hands and kill the rapist. No vigilante justice in the wild wild west territory of Michigan, nossir.
So, as with some of his other books, this novel was developed based on true crime with which the author was familiar. He was a District Attorney and had experience as defense counsel, too. In 1952 Voelker was asked to defend Army Lt. Coleman Peterson, who was accused of the murder of Mike Chenoweth, owner of the Lumberjack Tavern in Big Bay [Spoiler alert for a 70 year old book? After a six-day trial the jury returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of temporary insanity]. Voelker, putting on his author disguise, took a few years to write the novel, which was rejected by several publishers, though the draft that got accepted for pub in 1956 was heavily involved in making the trial the centerpiece of the story.
Three days after he got the contract, Gov. G. Mennen Williams asked him to serve on the Michigan Supreme Court, so 1956 was a pretty good year for Voelker, who was also famous in the U.P. for fly-fishing and drinking (one personal connection; my academic mentor was his friend and did his share of drinking and fishing with him; I heard some of the stories). And legal opinion writing for the Supreme Court, though he retired to write and fish, finally.
I really liked the trial, which has great battles between the two main attorneys, the prosecuting attorney-hired gun from LOWER Michigan, Lansing, played by a thin George C. Scott), who takes some shots as a snob by the UP-defender Traver, though he also makes fun of some of the small town no-nonsense life “up there.” One quick bit of comic relief is the trial of an alcoholic who steals a case of whiskey and admits it right from the first; he just wants to plead guilty and go to jail, so shut up, judge!
This is a very entertaining book (and movie--with Jimmy Stewart!), where all sorts of judicial line-crossing happens, in part because the UP is painted as non-PC; we can do what we want up here! Including openly killing a guy who sleeps with your wife! For legal eagles, this verdict--innocent by temporary insanity--is I am told very rare, something like 2% success rate, so don't try this at home unless you can bring back Jimmy Stewart or Voelker to defend you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rttoa....
This film is in the list of AFI's Top Ten Courtroom Dramas, in the company of others such as To Kill a Mockingbird, Witness for the Prosecution, and The Verdict), so this story really does stand the test of time.
We know from the first that there was a murder, and we know who did it right from the first, it's confessed, so most of this is courtroom drama, written by a former DA who obviously knows the territory. The murder is committed by a veteran who found his wife had been raped by a local bartender. Everyone saw him do it; he walked into the bar and pumped him with five bullets. This happens in the U.P. (the upper peninsula of the state of Michigan, an area I know well), where the judge has to warn the jury and the courtroom that if someone rapes your wife you can not take matters in your own hands and kill the rapist. No vigilante justice in the wild wild west territory of Michigan, nossir.
So, as with some of his other books, this novel was developed based on true crime with which the author was familiar. He was a District Attorney and had experience as defense counsel, too. In 1952 Voelker was asked to defend Army Lt. Coleman Peterson, who was accused of the murder of Mike Chenoweth, owner of the Lumberjack Tavern in Big Bay [Spoiler alert for a 70 year old book? After a six-day trial the jury returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of temporary insanity]. Voelker, putting on his author disguise, took a few years to write the novel, which was rejected by several publishers, though the draft that got accepted for pub in 1956 was heavily involved in making the trial the centerpiece of the story.
Three days after he got the contract, Gov. G. Mennen Williams asked him to serve on the Michigan Supreme Court, so 1956 was a pretty good year for Voelker, who was also famous in the U.P. for fly-fishing and drinking (one personal connection; my academic mentor was his friend and did his share of drinking and fishing with him; I heard some of the stories). And legal opinion writing for the Supreme Court, though he retired to write and fish, finally.
I really liked the trial, which has great battles between the two main attorneys, the prosecuting attorney-hired gun from LOWER Michigan, Lansing, played by a thin George C. Scott), who takes some shots as a snob by the UP-defender Traver, though he also makes fun of some of the small town no-nonsense life “up there.” One quick bit of comic relief is the trial of an alcoholic who steals a case of whiskey and admits it right from the first; he just wants to plead guilty and go to jail, so shut up, judge!
This is a very entertaining book (and movie--with Jimmy Stewart!), where all sorts of judicial line-crossing happens, in part because the UP is painted as non-PC; we can do what we want up here! Including openly killing a guy who sleeps with your wife! For legal eagles, this verdict--innocent by temporary insanity--is I am told very rare, something like 2% success rate, so don't try this at home unless you can bring back Jimmy Stewart or Voelker to defend you.
October 20, 2023
This was a bestseller in 1958 and an Academy Award winning film, and I can see why. Written by a former prosecuting attorney who knew the ins and outs of the courtroom as well as the law, it was not only riveting, but enjoyable as well. Lots of humor, banter, jockeying for the upper hand between the defense and the prosecution, and asides on the beauty and necessity of our legal system, it is more than just a novel about a murder trial.. It's also an insight into what makes people tick. Lots of surprises made the ending a pleasure.
I'll have to look for the movie, as Jimmy Stewart won an Oscar for his portrayal of Paul Biegler, and he was always a favorite actor of mine. One of those actors who never had a bad part.
I'll have to look for the movie, as Jimmy Stewart won an Oscar for his portrayal of Paul Biegler, and he was always a favorite actor of mine. One of those actors who never had a bad part.
April 8, 2021
In my opinion the 1958 fictionalized true-crime story ANATOMY OF A MURDER is a good book that made a near-great movie. (Note that the publisher even issued a later paperback edition with a movie-poster reproduction as its cover.) Travers wrote this book meticulously, but practically all the plot incident wound up in Otto Preminger's equally meticulous 1959 movie with its never before, never again cast (including Jimmy Stewart, Arthur O'Connell, Lee Remick, Ben Gazarra and Eve Arden).
Unfortunately, Travers also -- surely not the first attorney to do so! -- intrudes extraneous opinion about off-topics, such as what would happen to his beloved Upper Peninsula if overrun by tourists. I'm not sorry I read this book, but count ANATOMY OF A MURDER on my small list of books that were made into better movies.
Unfortunately, Travers also -- surely not the first attorney to do so! -- intrudes extraneous opinion about off-topics, such as what would happen to his beloved Upper Peninsula if overrun by tourists. I'm not sorry I read this book, but count ANATOMY OF A MURDER on my small list of books that were made into better movies.
May 16, 2009
It was interesting, and definitely edgy for 1958, but it was written in this pedantic, good old boys, kind of style that drive me mad. If you like courtroom drama, AND you don't mind a man's man type style... and you're not too hung up on getting to the story quickly, this will be a great book to read. If any of those things annoy you, stay away.
July 23, 2022
The movie version, directed by Otto Preminger, is widely considered a classic film with an all-star cast and a score by Duke Ellington. The book however, is kind of a mess; it reads like it was written by a chatty trout-fishing-enthusiast lawyer primarily because it WAS written by a trout-fishing-enthusiast lawyer (let's assume the "chatty" part), who in real life is Michigan Supreme Court Justice John D. Voelker. Based on a real-life murder case that Voelker/Traver successfully defended, the plot contains no real surprises or twists, although there are some minor reversals of fortune, and while there are some colorful characters their actions and dialogue often strain credibility to the daytime soap opera limit and beyond.
November 17, 2023
Review to come.
Here is it (11/16):
Based on a true murder that occurred in Big Bay, Michigan in 1952, this novel is considered a classic in the legal thriller genre and was made into an iconic Academy Award-nominated movie in 1959 (7 nominations) starring James Stewart, Lee Remick and George C. Scott and directed by the great Otto Preminger. The movie trailer even earned a Rotten Tomatoes “classic” designation and is absolutely true to the vibe of the book: [https://youtu.be/rttoa1A5c-s?si=CRdiT...- ]
The author, John D. Voelker, using the pen name Robert Traver, wrote this novel shortly after being defeated in his bid for re-election for district attorney of Marquette County, MI and deciding to focus on his private law practice. This novel is based on his first big case on the “flipside” of the law as defense counsel instead of prosecutor and centered on an Army lieutenant accused of murdering a well-known local innkeeper for allegedly raping his wife. Voelker employed a little-known defense tactic in his pursuit to free his client.
The names were all changed in the novel but the basic facts and events are real. And if you want to “witness” a murder trial firsthand, this is your book. All the dynamic and complicated elements of a real trial are here and much, much more. Mr. Voelker, an avid fly fisherman and lifelong resident of the community where this novel is set, had a wit and intelligence that shined throughout these 450 pages and kept the story from bogging down. Highly recommended to fans of this genre. 4.5 excellent stars.
“At that moment I envied the man. For Parnell McCarthy possessed that rarest and most precious of human talents, a talent so elusive that it receded only the faster before those who wooed it with more gadgets and toys: the capacity for participation and joy, the enviable ability to draw vast pleasure and enjoyment from small occasions and simple things. For all the old man’s show of cynicism, he possessed the sense of wonder and soaring innocence of a small boy flying a kite.” ~ Attorney Paul “Polly” Biegler, describing his friend “Parn” (who happens to be one of my favorite characters in the book)
Here is it (11/16):
Based on a true murder that occurred in Big Bay, Michigan in 1952, this novel is considered a classic in the legal thriller genre and was made into an iconic Academy Award-nominated movie in 1959 (7 nominations) starring James Stewart, Lee Remick and George C. Scott and directed by the great Otto Preminger. The movie trailer even earned a Rotten Tomatoes “classic” designation and is absolutely true to the vibe of the book: [https://youtu.be/rttoa1A5c-s?si=CRdiT...- ]
The author, John D. Voelker, using the pen name Robert Traver, wrote this novel shortly after being defeated in his bid for re-election for district attorney of Marquette County, MI and deciding to focus on his private law practice. This novel is based on his first big case on the “flipside” of the law as defense counsel instead of prosecutor and centered on an Army lieutenant accused of murdering a well-known local innkeeper for allegedly raping his wife. Voelker employed a little-known defense tactic in his pursuit to free his client.
The names were all changed in the novel but the basic facts and events are real. And if you want to “witness” a murder trial firsthand, this is your book. All the dynamic and complicated elements of a real trial are here and much, much more. Mr. Voelker, an avid fly fisherman and lifelong resident of the community where this novel is set, had a wit and intelligence that shined throughout these 450 pages and kept the story from bogging down. Highly recommended to fans of this genre. 4.5 excellent stars.
“At that moment I envied the man. For Parnell McCarthy possessed that rarest and most precious of human talents, a talent so elusive that it receded only the faster before those who wooed it with more gadgets and toys: the capacity for participation and joy, the enviable ability to draw vast pleasure and enjoyment from small occasions and simple things. For all the old man’s show of cynicism, he possessed the sense of wonder and soaring innocence of a small boy flying a kite.” ~ Attorney Paul “Polly” Biegler, describing his friend “Parn” (who happens to be one of my favorite characters in the book)
October 10, 2022
"Ανατομία ενός εγκλήματος", εκδόσεις Plus One (σειρά βιβλίων τσέπης των εκδόσεων Πατάκη).
Πίσω από το ψευδώνυμο Ρόμπερτ Τρέιβερ κρύβεται ο Τζον Ντ. Βόλκερ, ένας Αμερικανός νομικός με πλούσια καριέρα σαν δικηγόρος, εισαγγελέας και δικαστής (και με τεράστιο πάθος για ψάρεμα με μύγα), που αποφάσισε να γράψει ένα δικαστικό θρίλερ βασισμένο τόσο στις εμπειρίες του από την πολυετή του παρουσία στις δικαστικές αίθουσες, όσο και σε μια αληθινή ιστορία, στην οποία ήταν και ένας εκ των πρωταγωνιστών (ήταν δικηγόρος υπεράσπισης). Ναι, η ιστορία του βιβλίου βασίζεται σε μια αληθινή υπόθεση και λίγο έως πολύ μπορεί να την χαρακτηρίσει κανείς ως ένα κλασικό παράδειγμα απόδοσης δικαιοσύνης.
Κατά τη γνώμη μου πρόκειται για ένα εξαιρετικά καλογραμμένο, ενδιαφέρον, οξυδερκές και σε πολλά σημεία συναρπαστικό δικαστικό θρίλερ, με όλα τα καλούδια που θα περίμενε κανείς από ένα τόσο κλασικό μυθιστόρημα του είδους, με τη γραφή να είναι πάρα, μα πάρα πολύ καλή, καθόλου... αρτηριοσκληρωτική ή ξύλινη όπως ίσως θα περίμενε κανείς από έναν δικαστή, αλλά αντίθετα ολοζώντανη, με γλαφυρές περιγραφές, ωραίους διαλόγους και πνευματώδες χιούμορ. Σίγουρα το βιβλίο είναι μεγάλο σε μέγεθος και υπάρχει μια κάποια πολυλογία, ο συγγραφέας εννοείται πως είναι λάτρης της λεπτομέρειας όσον αφορά το αντικείμενό του και προσπάθησε (και οφείλω να πω ότι κατάφερε απόλυτα) να αποδώσει όσο πιο ρεαλιστικά και σφαιρικά γινόταν μια κλασική υπόθεση φόνου και την μετέπειτα δικαστική διαμάχη, με το βιβλίο να χωρίζεται σε δυο μέρη ("Πριν από τη δίκη" το πρώτο μέρος και "Η δίκη" το δεύτερο).
Θέλω να πω, υπάρχει πολλή λεπτομέρεια εδώ μέσα, και σίγουρα ο αναγνώστης μπορεί να μάθει κάμποσα ενδιαφέροντα πραγματάκια σχετικά με τη δικαιοσύνη και τον όλο τρόπο λειτουργίας της (τουλάχιστον στις ΗΠΑ), ενώ βέβαια η ατμόσφαιρα είναι απόλυτα ρεαλιστική και στο τέλος σου μένει η αίσθηση ότι μόλις διάβασες κάτι κλασικό, οπωσδήποτε ένα ποιοτικό και χορταστικό ανάγνωσμα. Εντάξει, είναι ένα βραδυφλεγές δικαστικό θρίλερ, μην περιμένετε τρομερή ένταση ή αγωνία, ούτε ένα θρίλερ με απίστευτα δραματικές κορυφώσεις, πάντως σε κρατάει δέσμιό του χάρη στη γραφή, το βάθος της πλοκής και την όλη ατμόσφαιρα.
Υ.Γ. Είναι πραγματικά κρίμα που ένα τέτοιο βιβλίο, που αποτελεί και τη βάση για μια κλασική ταινία (ευτυχώς την έχω στη συλλογή μου!), να μην κυκλοφορεί πλέον στα ελληνικά. Θα μπορούσε άνετα να επανεκδοθεί σε έκδοση βιβλιοπωλείου, ή ακόμα και σε έκδοση τσέπης, όπως αρχικά κυκλοφόρησε.
Πίσω από το ψευδώνυμο Ρόμπερτ Τρέιβερ κρύβεται ο Τζον Ντ. Βόλκερ, ένας Αμερικανός νομικός με πλούσια καριέρα σαν δικηγόρος, εισαγγελέας και δικαστής (και με τεράστιο πάθος για ψάρεμα με μύγα), που αποφάσισε να γράψει ένα δικαστικό θρίλερ βασισμένο τόσο στις εμπειρίες του από την πολυετή του παρουσία στις δικαστικές αίθουσες, όσο και σε μια αληθινή ιστορία, στην οποία ήταν και ένας εκ των πρωταγωνιστών (ήταν δικηγόρος υπεράσπισης). Ναι, η ιστορία του βιβλίου βασίζεται σε μια αληθινή υπόθεση και λίγο έως πολύ μπορεί να την χαρακτηρίσει κανείς ως ένα κλασικό παράδειγμα απόδοσης δικαιοσύνης.
Κατά τη γνώμη μου πρόκειται για ένα εξαιρετικά καλογραμμένο, ενδιαφέρον, οξυδερκές και σε πολλά σημεία συναρπαστικό δικαστικό θρίλερ, με όλα τα καλούδια που θα περίμενε κανείς από ένα τόσο κλασικό μυθιστόρημα του είδους, με τη γραφή να είναι πάρα, μα πάρα πολύ καλή, καθόλου... αρτηριοσκληρωτική ή ξύλινη όπως ίσως θα περίμενε κανείς από έναν δικαστή, αλλά αντίθετα ολοζώντανη, με γλαφυρές περιγραφές, ωραίους διαλόγους και πνευματώδες χιούμορ. Σίγουρα το βιβλίο είναι μεγάλο σε μέγεθος και υπάρχει μια κάποια πολυλογία, ο συγγραφέας εννοείται πως είναι λάτρης της λεπτομέρειας όσον αφορά το αντικείμενό του και προσπάθησε (και οφείλω να πω ότι κατάφερε απόλυτα) να αποδώσει όσο πιο ρεαλιστικά και σφαιρικά γινόταν μια κλασική υπόθεση φόνου και την μετέπειτα δικαστική διαμάχη, με το βιβλίο να χωρίζεται σε δυο μέρη ("Πριν από τη δίκη" το πρώτο μέρος και "Η δίκη" το δεύτερο).
Θέλω να πω, υπάρχει πολλή λεπτομέρεια εδώ μέσα, και σίγουρα ο αναγνώστης μπορεί να μάθει κάμποσα ενδιαφέροντα πραγματάκια σχετικά με τη δικαιοσύνη και τον όλο τρόπο λειτουργίας της (τουλάχιστον στις ΗΠΑ), ενώ βέβαια η ατμόσφαιρα είναι απόλυτα ρεαλιστική και στο τέλος σου μένει η αίσθηση ότι μόλις διάβασες κάτι κλασικό, οπωσδήποτε ένα ποιοτικό και χορταστικό ανάγνωσμα. Εντάξει, είναι ένα βραδυφλεγές δικαστικό θρίλερ, μην περιμένετε τρομερή ένταση ή αγωνία, ούτε ένα θρίλερ με απίστευτα δραματικές κορυφώσεις, πάντως σε κρατάει δέσμιό του χάρη στη γραφή, το βάθος της πλοκής και την όλη ατμόσφαιρα.
Υ.Γ. Είναι πραγματικά κρίμα που ένα τέτοιο βιβλίο, που αποτελεί και τη βάση για μια κλασική ταινία (ευτυχώς την έχω στη συλλογή μου!), να μην κυκλοφορεί πλέον στα ελληνικά. Θα μπορούσε άνετα να επανεκδοθεί σε έκδοση βιβλιοπωλείου, ή ακόμα και σε έκδοση τσέπης, όπως αρχικά κυκλοφόρησε.
January 30, 2016
A woman is raped at the gates of her neighborhood, but her cries for help register too late. By the time her husband, one Lieutenant Frederic Manion of the US Army, realizes what has transpired, the rapist has fled for the safety of the local bar...a bar which he owns. Undeterred, the Lieutenant enters the bar, calmly empties his Luger pistol into the man's chest, and leaves to deliver himself into the hands of the closest deputy-sheriff. Paul Biegler is a former prosecuting attorney with congressional ambitions and a struggling practice. While Biegler is a potent lawyer, a more bombastic rival in town attracts most of the criminal defense work. A call from Manion seems like a dread godsend: while a victory could establish and spread his reputation, a defeat might make him a laughingstock. The prosecuting attorney is a man who has already defeated Biegler once at the polls, and who has an eye on the same congressional seat as Biegler. This seems like a simple case: a decorated war hero killed the man who raped his wife. But it isn't enough that a jury might sympathize with Manion morally: how can he be defended legally?
The American Bar Association includes the dramatization of this book on their list of "25 Greatest Legal Movies", and that list drew my attention to the book in the first place. While I've been reading legal thrillers by John Grisham for the last fifteen years, I'd never heard of this 1950s-era novel. Despite the dramatic start, Anatomy isn't a 'thriller'; it strikes me as a more mature novel. The author was a practicing attorney and a judge, and wrote the novel based on one of his own cases. The judge's lifetime of of experience is on full display here, talking with the reader through Biegler's conversations with Manion and others about the nature of law itself: its uses, its shortcomings. Anatomy is thus a philosophical novel, and I for one found the musing just as provocative as any nonfiction read. The trial remains an interesting mystery throughout, as there proves to be more to the story than a hotel owner deciding to attack Mrs. Manion. Traver (John D. Voelker's pen-name)'s best talent lies with dialogue. The aforementioned philosophical conversations are fascinating, of course, but the on-going banter between Biegler and his law partner never failed to delight. In short, Anatomy of a Murder is a richer legal novel than any I've read, and I wish my library carried more by the author. I also intend on watching the movie, but that's a given considering it stars James Stewart.
The American Bar Association includes the dramatization of this book on their list of "25 Greatest Legal Movies", and that list drew my attention to the book in the first place. While I've been reading legal thrillers by John Grisham for the last fifteen years, I'd never heard of this 1950s-era novel. Despite the dramatic start, Anatomy isn't a 'thriller'; it strikes me as a more mature novel. The author was a practicing attorney and a judge, and wrote the novel based on one of his own cases. The judge's lifetime of of experience is on full display here, talking with the reader through Biegler's conversations with Manion and others about the nature of law itself: its uses, its shortcomings. Anatomy is thus a philosophical novel, and I for one found the musing just as provocative as any nonfiction read. The trial remains an interesting mystery throughout, as there proves to be more to the story than a hotel owner deciding to attack Mrs. Manion. Traver (John D. Voelker's pen-name)'s best talent lies with dialogue. The aforementioned philosophical conversations are fascinating, of course, but the on-going banter between Biegler and his law partner never failed to delight. In short, Anatomy of a Murder is a richer legal novel than any I've read, and I wish my library carried more by the author. I also intend on watching the movie, but that's a given considering it stars James Stewart.
June 9, 2022
more to come at some point but for now:
Coming in at just over 400 pages, don't let the size of this book be a deterrent -- it reads very quickly, especially since I didn't want to put it down, which is also for me the sign of a really, really good book. The only drawback is that I couldn't help but hear the voices of the main actors from the Preminger film while reading, which is really distracting. Another thing: I was more than surprised to learn that Anatomy of a Murder was based on a true story; Traver (the pseudonym he used) was actually John Voelker, the defense attorney in this case:
https://www.historictruecrime.com/the...
more later, but definitely recommended.
Coming in at just over 400 pages, don't let the size of this book be a deterrent -- it reads very quickly, especially since I didn't want to put it down, which is also for me the sign of a really, really good book. The only drawback is that I couldn't help but hear the voices of the main actors from the Preminger film while reading, which is really distracting. Another thing: I was more than surprised to learn that Anatomy of a Murder was based on a true story; Traver (the pseudonym he used) was actually John Voelker, the defense attorney in this case:
https://www.historictruecrime.com/the...
more later, but definitely recommended.
February 24, 2025
Uno de mis mayores sueños es que me convoquen para ser jurado popular. ¿Ha influido esta circunstancia en mi valoración de la novela? Señor juez, como buen jurado aspiro a ser imparcial.
Anatomía de un asesinato podría usarse como manual para estudiantes de derecho. Y no digamos ya para autores de ficción judicial. Lo tiene todo: el abogado tramposillo, el fiscal antipático, el juez campechano, las reacciones del jurado a las estrategias del abogado y del fiscal, el testigo poco fiable, el vapuleo al perito sabihondo, , el momento anecdótico que la prensa adora, el testigo sorpresa, los alegatos del abogado y del fiscal (larguísimos)... TODO.
Vi la película hace años y me encantó. La he vuelto a ver después de leer la novela y he decir que su enfoque del juicio me ha hecho torcer el morro.
¿Por qué?
Como quizás sabrán, la novela relata un juicio; el acusado es un soldado que mata a tiros al dueño de un bar poco después de enterarse de que ha violado a su mujer. Pues bien, en la novela no se pone en duda que se ha tratado de una violación, el meollo del asunto está en decidir si el acusado actuó con premeditación y alevosía o bien sufrió un episodio de enajenación mental transitoria. En cambio, la película discurre en torno a la duda sobre si la mujer fue violada o miente. Es decir, en la película se juzga a la mujer, en realidad; al marido solo de rebote. ¿Un poco machista la película en comparación con la novela? Diría que sí.
Si las novelas se pudiesen hermanar, como las ciudades, yo hermanaría Anatomía de un asesinato con Un juicio sangriento, de Stephen Graham Jones. Las dos plantean prácticamente el mismo conflicto: hasta qué punto el acusado era responsable de sus actos en el momento de cometer el crimen.
Anatomía de un asesinato no brilla por su estilo ni por la construcción de los personajes. El autor era un juez retirado, no un escritor profesional. Pero la estructura tiene la solidez de la demostración de un teorema—la parte de la preparación del juicio se hace un poco larga, eso sí— y los aspectos judiciales están explicados con una claridad meridiana.
Si son ustedes como yo, que en las librerías ojeo las contracubiertas de los libros buscando palabras como "humor" e "ironía" , sepan que sí, que en la novela —al igual que en la película— los personajes tienen sentido del humor. Como las personas reales.
Y el final... El final es final de bestseller bueno.
Anatomía de un asesinato podría usarse como manual para estudiantes de derecho. Y no digamos ya para autores de ficción judicial. Lo tiene todo: el abogado tramposillo, el fiscal antipático, el juez campechano, las reacciones del jurado a las estrategias del abogado y del fiscal, el testigo poco fiable, el vapuleo al perito sabihondo, , el momento anecdótico que la prensa adora, el testigo sorpresa, los alegatos del abogado y del fiscal (larguísimos)... TODO.
Vi la película hace años y me encantó. La he vuelto a ver después de leer la novela y he decir que su enfoque del juicio me ha hecho torcer el morro.
¿Por qué?
Como quizás sabrán, la novela relata un juicio; el acusado es un soldado que mata a tiros al dueño de un bar poco después de enterarse de que ha violado a su mujer. Pues bien, en la novela no se pone en duda que se ha tratado de una violación, el meollo del asunto está en decidir si el acusado actuó con premeditación y alevosía o bien sufrió un episodio de enajenación mental transitoria. En cambio, la película discurre en torno a la duda sobre si la mujer fue violada o miente. Es decir, en la película se juzga a la mujer, en realidad; al marido solo de rebote. ¿Un poco machista la película en comparación con la novela? Diría que sí.
Si las novelas se pudiesen hermanar, como las ciudades, yo hermanaría Anatomía de un asesinato con Un juicio sangriento, de Stephen Graham Jones. Las dos plantean prácticamente el mismo conflicto: hasta qué punto el acusado era responsable de sus actos en el momento de cometer el crimen.
Anatomía de un asesinato no brilla por su estilo ni por la construcción de los personajes. El autor era un juez retirado, no un escritor profesional. Pero la estructura tiene la solidez de la demostración de un teorema—la parte de la preparación del juicio se hace un poco larga, eso sí— y los aspectos judiciales están explicados con una claridad meridiana.
Si son ustedes como yo, que en las librerías ojeo las contracubiertas de los libros buscando palabras como "humor" e "ironía" , sepan que sí, que en la novela —al igual que en la película— los personajes tienen sentido del humor. Como las personas reales.
Y el final... El final es final de bestseller bueno.
Want to read
December 9, 2024Apparently, this book is 1) about a trial and 2) set in my home state of Michigan. Yes and yes!
April 20, 2025
Entertaining read.
March 24, 2021
This book was recommended (I thought largely on the strength of its angling-obsessed protagonist), so its fame and subsequent success on the silver screen rather passed me by.
Still, I prefer not to read reviews beforehand, so that was fine. It is described on the cover as ‘The Original Classic Courtroom Thriller’. I would say ‘drama’ would be a more apt word.
The pace is steady at best. That said, any faster and it would be tricky – it is after all a court case, and the details mount relentlessly.
In a small-town tale set in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in the 1950s, middle-aged ex-DA Paul Biegler must turn his hand to becoming a defence counsel to fund his passion for fishing.
In what could make or break his reputation, Biegler defends US soldier Lt. Frederick Manion, charged with the multiple-witnessed cold-blooded murder of Barney Quill, whom he suspected of the violent rape of his wife, Laura Manion.
Biegler’s strategy? A rarely used defence of ‘Irresistible Impulse’ (read as, not guilty by virtue of temporary insanity). Intriguingly, the novel was based on a true story; moreover, the author was a former Michigan Supreme Court Justice (John D Voelker writing as Robert Traver).
Tension gradually builds as evidence ebbs and flows. Biegler is obliged to burn the midnight oil and conduct his own investigations. On the floor of the court, he finds his wits tested to their limits by fancy Dan city prosecutor Claude Dancer, a tormentor sent from the Attorney General’s office.
For the reader (listener, in my case), a verdict lies just over the horizon. But I discovered I did not need this reassurance to keep going. The author, writing in the first person, presents Biegler as unassuming, self-effacing, good humoured and eminently likeable (unlike, it must be said, the man he defends). Coming each lunchtime to my precious listening slot, I was always pleased to be reminded of my current book.
No spoilers here, of course; but there is an ingenious thought-provoking twist that will have you pondering long after you know the verdict of the jury.
Still, I prefer not to read reviews beforehand, so that was fine. It is described on the cover as ‘The Original Classic Courtroom Thriller’. I would say ‘drama’ would be a more apt word.
The pace is steady at best. That said, any faster and it would be tricky – it is after all a court case, and the details mount relentlessly.
In a small-town tale set in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in the 1950s, middle-aged ex-DA Paul Biegler must turn his hand to becoming a defence counsel to fund his passion for fishing.
In what could make or break his reputation, Biegler defends US soldier Lt. Frederick Manion, charged with the multiple-witnessed cold-blooded murder of Barney Quill, whom he suspected of the violent rape of his wife, Laura Manion.
Biegler’s strategy? A rarely used defence of ‘Irresistible Impulse’ (read as, not guilty by virtue of temporary insanity). Intriguingly, the novel was based on a true story; moreover, the author was a former Michigan Supreme Court Justice (John D Voelker writing as Robert Traver).
Tension gradually builds as evidence ebbs and flows. Biegler is obliged to burn the midnight oil and conduct his own investigations. On the floor of the court, he finds his wits tested to their limits by fancy Dan city prosecutor Claude Dancer, a tormentor sent from the Attorney General’s office.
For the reader (listener, in my case), a verdict lies just over the horizon. But I discovered I did not need this reassurance to keep going. The author, writing in the first person, presents Biegler as unassuming, self-effacing, good humoured and eminently likeable (unlike, it must be said, the man he defends). Coming each lunchtime to my precious listening slot, I was always pleased to be reminded of my current book.
No spoilers here, of course; but there is an ingenious thought-provoking twist that will have you pondering long after you know the verdict of the jury.
June 14, 2019
A pesar de que no leo muchos libros de este género, el thriller jurídico, no puedo negar que me fascina, por supuesto hablo de juicios relacionados con el proceso legal basado en el “common Law”, mientras que en mi país los juicios y la ley se basan en el derecho romano y por lo tanto los juicios son totalmente diferentes y para mí, mucho más complicados y aburridos, en Estados Unidos ese juego legal de juzgado, jurados, juez, abogado defensor y fiscal que se enzarzan en una lucha verbal y demás, me divierte enormemente, por supuesto me imagino que una vez metido en el sistema legal en la realidad en Estados Unidos resultará en algo diferente de lo que vemos en las películas y libros, pero mientras tanto, nos entrega libros realmente disfrutables dónde abogado defensor y fiscal se pelean en un juicio verbal y normalmente son tan divertidos e interesantes que siempre son bastante emocionantes.
Este libro se desarrolla completamente en el tema del proceso legal y juicio de un hombre que ha sido acusado de asesinato en primer grado, el libro comienza donde el abogado defensor recibe a la esposa del inculpado para contratarlo.
El inculpado, además de haberle metido 5 balas a otro hombre delante de muchas personas, se entregó a la policía una vez asesinado al otro hombre, así que como verán la defensa no tiene, en apariencia, mucho de donde agarrarse para lograr un veredicto a favor.
Todo el libro estamos inmersos en el ir y venir y la genialidad, tanto del abogado defensor, como de un ayudante del fiscal en el juicio, la presentación de pruebas, la interrogación de los diferentes testigos de cargo y a favor, las declaraciones finales de ambos abogados y en medio de todo eso, la investigación legal y personal que se tiene que hacer por parte de la defensa para presentar su caso.
Toda esa parte me encantó, ya he dicho que me fascina, esta muy bien planteada y además no se me ha hecho para nada difícil de leer o de comprender a pesar de los muchos términos legales utilizados, pero además, este libro fue escrito en 1958, así que, también me ha resultado muy interesante ver cómo trabajaban pruebas y demás en una época con poca tecnología, nada de ADN, nada de teléfonos celulares, nada de tecnología de punta, todo se hacía a base de ingenio y verdadero trabajo de escritorio y lectura de mucha información en papel, por otro lado, también el ver detalles como el que todo mundo fumaba en todas partes, dentro del juzgado, dentro de la cárcel, en la casa de todas las personas, cosa que como sabemos, ahora es casi pecado capital.
Me ha gustado mucho este libro, está narrado en primera persona por el que es el abogado defensor, aunque no me importa leer libros de este estilo narrativo, si que es verdad que cuando leo algo así, me quedo siempre con las ganas de saber que pasaba por la mente de otros personajes y que es imposible saberlo porque solo tenemos las impresiones que nos entrega quien narra, pero aún así tengo que decir que está tan bien escrito que no me ha hecho mucha falta esa parte.
Para quienes les gusten las novelas basadas en juicios y situaciones legales, les aseguro que este libro les va a encantar.
Este libro se desarrolla completamente en el tema del proceso legal y juicio de un hombre que ha sido acusado de asesinato en primer grado, el libro comienza donde el abogado defensor recibe a la esposa del inculpado para contratarlo.
El inculpado, además de haberle metido 5 balas a otro hombre delante de muchas personas, se entregó a la policía una vez asesinado al otro hombre, así que como verán la defensa no tiene, en apariencia, mucho de donde agarrarse para lograr un veredicto a favor.
Todo el libro estamos inmersos en el ir y venir y la genialidad, tanto del abogado defensor, como de un ayudante del fiscal en el juicio, la presentación de pruebas, la interrogación de los diferentes testigos de cargo y a favor, las declaraciones finales de ambos abogados y en medio de todo eso, la investigación legal y personal que se tiene que hacer por parte de la defensa para presentar su caso.
Toda esa parte me encantó, ya he dicho que me fascina, esta muy bien planteada y además no se me ha hecho para nada difícil de leer o de comprender a pesar de los muchos términos legales utilizados, pero además, este libro fue escrito en 1958, así que, también me ha resultado muy interesante ver cómo trabajaban pruebas y demás en una época con poca tecnología, nada de ADN, nada de teléfonos celulares, nada de tecnología de punta, todo se hacía a base de ingenio y verdadero trabajo de escritorio y lectura de mucha información en papel, por otro lado, también el ver detalles como el que todo mundo fumaba en todas partes, dentro del juzgado, dentro de la cárcel, en la casa de todas las personas, cosa que como sabemos, ahora es casi pecado capital.
Me ha gustado mucho este libro, está narrado en primera persona por el que es el abogado defensor, aunque no me importa leer libros de este estilo narrativo, si que es verdad que cuando leo algo así, me quedo siempre con las ganas de saber que pasaba por la mente de otros personajes y que es imposible saberlo porque solo tenemos las impresiones que nos entrega quien narra, pero aún así tengo que decir que está tan bien escrito que no me ha hecho mucha falta esa parte.
Para quienes les gusten las novelas basadas en juicios y situaciones legales, les aseguro que este libro les va a encantar.
October 23, 2023
Could this have been shorter? Yes.
Did I need to know every detail of this trial, including jury selection and 17 jury instructions? No.
Was there a plot twist as I was somehow led to believe? No.
I admire the book’s central law head-scratcher: How do you get a man acquitted of murder who unequivocally did it? And I do admire the front seat to a superb lawyer’s trip through a case and trial, with every detail told. It’s interesting on a certain level. But I don’t think I’d want to do it again. Especially since the case ended up being quite straightforward. You think for a minute that the business with Mary Pilant will bear some juicy fruit, but no.
In the end, Lieutenant Manion is the most enigmatic character, which is ironic since he’s the defendant and the impetus for everything. But I think that’s the point. Whether he’s guilty or not, what matters is the lawyer’s case.
The dog in the courtroom was the highlight.
Did I need to know every detail of this trial, including jury selection and 17 jury instructions? No.
Was there a plot twist as I was somehow led to believe? No.
I admire the book’s central law head-scratcher: How do you get a man acquitted of murder who unequivocally did it? And I do admire the front seat to a superb lawyer’s trip through a case and trial, with every detail told. It’s interesting on a certain level. But I don’t think I’d want to do it again. Especially since the case ended up being quite straightforward. You think for a minute that the business with Mary Pilant will bear some juicy fruit, but no.
In the end, Lieutenant Manion is the most enigmatic character, which is ironic since he’s the defendant and the impetus for everything. But I think that’s the point. Whether he’s guilty or not, what matters is the lawyer’s case.
The dog in the courtroom was the highlight.
January 14, 2024
The first five chapters of this book were to be fair just ramblings, I had a hard time reading the book because the beginning was really not interesting. After this hiccup… a gem of a book. The book was written in 1958 and read as a noir but in a small town atmosphere.
Like Biegler, John Voelker aka Robert Traver ran for Congress, lived in U.P., was a prosecuting attorney “D.A” and lost in an election like the central character and he was an avid fisherman… you can say that this book is his story. Actually the book is based on a real case that Voelker tried as a lawyer defending a client accused of murdering a tavern owner because the man raped his wife. I don’t know about attorney client privilege but the case is identical to the book up to the last page. Biegler’s case is the same case that Voelker defended.
During the movie he became a good friend of the attorney who portrayed the Judge in the film, Joseph Welch. He is the one who after being confronted by Joseph McCarthy in 1954 said to him “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?. This single sentence by Welch ended McCarthy’s career. I wish that some of the people being interrogated by Congress now would have the audacity to enunciate those same words especially when we are dealing with conspiracy theories and lies.
Biegler likes to emasculate other men, they are either small, uneducated or old not a friendly character but one that can fit perfectly in a small town.
A story about the love of law, the love of fishing, nature and good people. This book took me by surprise. I loved it!
Like Biegler, John Voelker aka Robert Traver ran for Congress, lived in U.P., was a prosecuting attorney “D.A” and lost in an election like the central character and he was an avid fisherman… you can say that this book is his story. Actually the book is based on a real case that Voelker tried as a lawyer defending a client accused of murdering a tavern owner because the man raped his wife. I don’t know about attorney client privilege but the case is identical to the book up to the last page. Biegler’s case is the same case that Voelker defended.
During the movie he became a good friend of the attorney who portrayed the Judge in the film, Joseph Welch. He is the one who after being confronted by Joseph McCarthy in 1954 said to him “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?. This single sentence by Welch ended McCarthy’s career. I wish that some of the people being interrogated by Congress now would have the audacity to enunciate those same words especially when we are dealing with conspiracy theories and lies.
Biegler likes to emasculate other men, they are either small, uneducated or old not a friendly character but one that can fit perfectly in a small town.
A story about the love of law, the love of fishing, nature and good people. This book took me by surprise. I loved it!
February 18, 2011
At #2 on the 1958 bestseller list is this story of a murder and trial, set in a small town in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The legal thriller has become a staple in current fiction but was a fairly new genre in the 1950s. Compulsion, a 1957 bestseller by Meyer Levin was the beginning, but Levin had a journalism background while Robert Traver had been a practicing lawyer and judge.
The writing is clunky and wordy but Traver goes quite extensively into all aspects of preparing a case, selecting a jury, and the differences between the approach of a prosecuting attorney versus a defense attorney. He also manages to make what I consider a dry subject interesting.
The murderer confessed to his crime and turned himself in on the night of the murder, so our hero, former DA Paul Beigler, plans his defense around a variation of the insanity plea. The reader gets instructed along with the judge and jury, on the workings of such a plea.
Because of some intriguing side stories about the murderer, his wife and the victim; because a rape preceded the murder; because the setting is integral to the plot, it was all in all a satisfying read. I could see the "surprise" ending coming but the tension of the trial was good and taut.
An Otto Preminger movie from 1959 with James Stewart and Lee Remick features Duke Ellington as the piano player in the bar and includes some of his tunes.
Another piece of the puzzle regarding fiction in America falls into place for me.
January 11, 2016
Thanks to a facebook friend for recommending I read this book for my read 50 books from 50states challenge. This book takes place in MICHIGAN! and I heard it is loosely based on real events.
Well I will say for a book written in the 1950's this was a topic I did not expect to be, and then I found out it was a very popular book and made into a movie.
A crime of rape and murder that is brought to a sensational trial. Most of the book is about the prep work for the trial and then the trial. Hey courtroom drama has not changed much in all these years.!
This was a very satisfying read
Well I will say for a book written in the 1950's this was a topic I did not expect to be, and then I found out it was a very popular book and made into a movie.
A crime of rape and murder that is brought to a sensational trial. Most of the book is about the prep work for the trial and then the trial. Hey courtroom drama has not changed much in all these years.!
This was a very satisfying read
September 13, 2025
Paul Biegler, Attorney at Law, would rather be fishing than in a court room. At least that is his story since he lost the last election for county prosecutor, a position he had held practically since he began practicing law. He finds most day to day cases of a simple attorney at law boring. Then he is contacted by the wife of a man who has just been arrested for murder. Murder is not much of thing in his quiet upper-peninsula Michigan county, so he can’t resist looking into it. Paul has a tenacious legal mind, hiding under his fishing gear, and can’t let go of the legal knot before him, even as he doubts the innocence of his client and his ability to pay any kind of legal fee.
My husband and I can quote long passages from the 1959 movie that came out a year after this book was written. It is one of his all time favorites, and one I never tire of as well. I’ve always felt puzzled by the frank way this murder case, which is also a rape case, talks about sexual facts in the courtroom. Not that those facts wouldn’t be in a real life court room, but I’ve always believed they would not have been put into a movie at that time. The discussion is frank and direct without many euphemisms. It was very much the same, and more so in the book. Travers is, himself a lawyer and goes on to sit as a judge on the supreme court of Michigan, so it is no wonder the legal scene is so honest and vibrant. He is also a very talented writer, if at times a little too in love with his own vocabulary and witty descriptions and comparisons.
This was throughly enjoyable read. With the quibble of how some women were depicted, I believe more as a result of 1950s bias than misogyny. The three women that feature in this book are all fully fleshed out and complex. But there is a lot of reference to women who flock to the courtroom for titillation in their boring lives without much to offer society. The rape is horrifying in it description, and I do believe the weight of it is felt by the reader, but at times Biegler, as the narrator, is offhand about it. I found it unsettling.
I expected to be reading this more as a companion of what I already knew from the movie, but there are BIG differences between the narrative. Some of my favorite lines and most surprising scenes were created by the script writers and not Travers. It is rare that two works from the same material can be so throughly satisfying. My very favorite thing about this movie has nothing to do with it. Judge Weaver is played by Joesph N. Welsh, who was not an actor but a former judge himself. He is guy who faced off against Joesph McCarthy and said famously, “Have you no shame!” He was, as was every single actor in the movie, marvelous.
I adored my time with it.
My husband and I can quote long passages from the 1959 movie that came out a year after this book was written. It is one of his all time favorites, and one I never tire of as well. I’ve always felt puzzled by the frank way this murder case, which is also a rape case, talks about sexual facts in the courtroom. Not that those facts wouldn’t be in a real life court room, but I’ve always believed they would not have been put into a movie at that time. The discussion is frank and direct without many euphemisms. It was very much the same, and more so in the book. Travers is, himself a lawyer and goes on to sit as a judge on the supreme court of Michigan, so it is no wonder the legal scene is so honest and vibrant. He is also a very talented writer, if at times a little too in love with his own vocabulary and witty descriptions and comparisons.
This was throughly enjoyable read. With the quibble of how some women were depicted, I believe more as a result of 1950s bias than misogyny. The three women that feature in this book are all fully fleshed out and complex. But there is a lot of reference to women who flock to the courtroom for titillation in their boring lives without much to offer society. The rape is horrifying in it description, and I do believe the weight of it is felt by the reader, but at times Biegler, as the narrator, is offhand about it. I found it unsettling.
I expected to be reading this more as a companion of what I already knew from the movie, but there are BIG differences between the narrative. Some of my favorite lines and most surprising scenes were created by the script writers and not Travers. It is rare that two works from the same material can be so throughly satisfying. My very favorite thing about this movie has nothing to do with it. Judge Weaver is played by Joesph N. Welsh, who was not an actor but a former judge himself. He is guy who faced off against Joesph McCarthy and said famously, “Have you no shame!” He was, as was every single actor in the movie, marvelous.
I adored my time with it.
April 30, 2024
Another really good novel I wish I had read years ago. Very tempted to go with 5 stars, but can't quite. Great story of a murder, and how a former prosecutor takes on the case of the alleged murderer. Far better than the Otto Preminger movie, as good as that movie is. Although I sometimes find novels written in the first person a bit disappointing that's not the case here. In fact, after ready the forward by the author, using the first person for this novel works perfectly, almost demanding the reader assume the author's place throughout the trial.
Definitely recommended.
Definitely recommended.
July 2, 2016
Of the many constructs that have been invented by mankind to keep society whole, I see the invention of law as being the most important. It may have started with ancient chiefs and kings dictating their personal, passionate, and biased desires for justice. From there, councils took form, which somewhat normalized its application. And finally, the law became what it is today: words on paper that intend rule society with reason. As with every evolutionary process, there were diversions along the way, but in comparing where we are to where we once were, we have achieved a path of improvement.
Anatomy of a Murder is a novel that lives within the construct of law. The book makes no mystery of the killing that takes place. The killer is known and confesses in the opening pages. From there, the plot takes its reader through a passionate search for truth while guided by the law. Evidence is sought and amassed and the story unfolds.
Anatomy of a Murder then becomes a book about that evolved ritual of the law known as the trial. The trial phase puts the reader in the courtroom, practically as one of the jurors. Whiteness are questioned and both sides are strategic and convincing in their arguments. The process is guided by a judge, who's sole responsibility is to place the law above any human passion present in the courtroom. At the end of arguments, the case is sent to the jury with all possible outcomes in their charge as well as floating in the mind of the reader. The ordeal is a human process, but one that is governed by the rule of law.
I decided to read Anatomy of a Murder because it was recommended as being the book I just described. Additionally, it was not a part of a series. In fact, Robert Traver seems to have written more books on fishing than he has about law. The result is a book that stands alone. And it's also a book that will be relished if you are like me and think that the trial part of every Law & Order episode is far better than the initial investigation.
Anatomy of a Murder is a novel that lives within the construct of law. The book makes no mystery of the killing that takes place. The killer is known and confesses in the opening pages. From there, the plot takes its reader through a passionate search for truth while guided by the law. Evidence is sought and amassed and the story unfolds.
Anatomy of a Murder then becomes a book about that evolved ritual of the law known as the trial. The trial phase puts the reader in the courtroom, practically as one of the jurors. Whiteness are questioned and both sides are strategic and convincing in their arguments. The process is guided by a judge, who's sole responsibility is to place the law above any human passion present in the courtroom. At the end of arguments, the case is sent to the jury with all possible outcomes in their charge as well as floating in the mind of the reader. The ordeal is a human process, but one that is governed by the rule of law.
I decided to read Anatomy of a Murder because it was recommended as being the book I just described. Additionally, it was not a part of a series. In fact, Robert Traver seems to have written more books on fishing than he has about law. The result is a book that stands alone. And it's also a book that will be relished if you are like me and think that the trial part of every Law & Order episode is far better than the initial investigation.
March 14, 2013
This book really does not need another review but I must comment on the linguistic structure. Traver delivers straightforward literature; articulate, intelligent and expecting the same of his reader. His structures are immaculate, his word choice superb. The dry humor of his character delivers chuckle after chuckle. This book bumps into my top ten. Highly recommended as a stretch for younger readers - a challenge to read, with a dictionary close by. This is the kind of entertainment that is difficult to come by - enjoyable while raising the standard of expectations.
Read
March 13, 2017Many consider it the greatest legal thriller/courtroom drama of all time (with strong dissent from fans of Agatha Christie’s Witness for the Prosecution). This iconic thriller involves a suspenseful murder trial that could go either way. I find it especially interesting because the story was inspired by an actual case handled by the author in his other life as a criminal defense lawyer. I wonder if that was why John Voelker wrote under the pseudonym Robert Traver. —James Grippando (https://www.bookish.com/articles/jame...)
January 11, 2015
A classic
I had heard of this novel most of my life, and I finally decided to see what all the fuss was about back in its day. I was fascinated by the approach it took to a murder, knowing guilt at the outset, then truly hoping that innocence by means of insanity would be proven. We learn a lot about human nature, especially our own, by the time we reach the end. Equally fascinating is to compare that time, 50 years ago, to today. Maybe it's best I waited so long.
I had heard of this novel most of my life, and I finally decided to see what all the fuss was about back in its day. I was fascinated by the approach it took to a murder, knowing guilt at the outset, then truly hoping that innocence by means of insanity would be proven. We learn a lot about human nature, especially our own, by the time we reach the end. Equally fascinating is to compare that time, 50 years ago, to today. Maybe it's best I waited so long.
November 2, 2010
I randomly picked this up off my grandparent's bookshelf of leather-bound Franklin books. I have to say that not only did I thoroughly enjoy the well written story, but I learned more about our legal system than in both my high school and college civics classes combined. This will absolutely be a re-read!
December 19, 2017
The book is not always better than the movie. In this case the Jimmy Stewart movie made from this is a distillation of the best of the novel, or put another way, the book is like a deeper immersion into the film. The movie is five stars; the book maybe only 3 1/2, because of some dull passages. Still, well worth reading.
July 17, 2022
I have a hard time staying focused for some reason. I'm so used to the twisted manuevers of Perry Mason and Mickey Haller perhaps. The judge here was biased and on the lawyers side buddy buddy the whole time. I have heard it's an incredible movie, however - and did get it on sale with Vudu - so will watch it soon.
March 6, 2020
It takes the reader through the entire process of a murder trial, seen through the eyes of the defense attorney. Interesting to see everthing that goes into the process, but all that detail left me feeling a bit exhausted.
March 29, 2020
This classic courtroom drama was made into a blockbuster movie in 1959 starring Jimmy Stewart as the main character, defense attorney Paul Biegler. The facts of the killing are well-known from the beginning. The defendant's wife, Laura, was raped by the local innkeeper and the defendant, an army lieutenant, took a gun, went to the bar, and shot the rapist dead. He reported that he had done so and was taken into custody. It becomes Biegler's duty to try to get him off. The plot revolves primarily about the defense of temporary insanity.
I never practiced criminal law, but as a retired FBI agent, and attorney, I am very familiar with the issues in the case. I found the tactics and legal theories very well done, as the author is a former prosecutor. That part was fascinating to me, although I'm not sure so much to the average reader. The story is populated with some colorful characters - a crusty old drunk of a defense lawyer helping Paul, a couple of beautiful women, including the rape victim, a sassy secretary, an unrepentant defendant, a weaselly prosecutor, a folksy sheriff, and a comical deputy.
The author writes with too much wordiness for my taste, prolific in his descriptions almost to the point of purple prose. A sterner editor would have made this a better book. The author does not try to present a balanced perspective on the case. He stacks the deck in favor of the defense. It is clear from the beginning that we are supposed to root for the defendant to get off. The judge and sheriff seem to bend over backwards to favor the defense, too. All the clever ploys of the defense worked and all those of the prosecutor backfired. Nearly all the judge's ruling favored the defense. That part was a bit hard to believe and rankled me both because of its unbelievability and because it's the kind of thing that makes people distrust the legal system.
I enjoyed the drama of the story, but in the end my biggest disappointment was the blurring of the lines between good and bad. The "good guys" weren't as good as the reader might have hoped and the "bad guys" weren't nearly so bad as we are led to believe. I found the ending both predictable and unrewarding, but all in all, the book is worth a read.
I never practiced criminal law, but as a retired FBI agent, and attorney, I am very familiar with the issues in the case. I found the tactics and legal theories very well done, as the author is a former prosecutor. That part was fascinating to me, although I'm not sure so much to the average reader. The story is populated with some colorful characters - a crusty old drunk of a defense lawyer helping Paul, a couple of beautiful women, including the rape victim, a sassy secretary, an unrepentant defendant, a weaselly prosecutor, a folksy sheriff, and a comical deputy.
The author writes with too much wordiness for my taste, prolific in his descriptions almost to the point of purple prose. A sterner editor would have made this a better book. The author does not try to present a balanced perspective on the case. He stacks the deck in favor of the defense. It is clear from the beginning that we are supposed to root for the defendant to get off. The judge and sheriff seem to bend over backwards to favor the defense, too. All the clever ploys of the defense worked and all those of the prosecutor backfired. Nearly all the judge's ruling favored the defense. That part was a bit hard to believe and rankled me both because of its unbelievability and because it's the kind of thing that makes people distrust the legal system.
I enjoyed the drama of the story, but in the end my biggest disappointment was the blurring of the lines between good and bad. The "good guys" weren't as good as the reader might have hoped and the "bad guys" weren't nearly so bad as we are led to believe. I found the ending both predictable and unrewarding, but all in all, the book is worth a read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 470 reviews