Scan barcode
rlmil715's review against another edition
4.0
This was an interesting read about trial strategy, legal history and precedent, and about Lincoln's contribution to American law.
deanbookwormer's review against another edition
3.0
I wound up skimming and finally just jumped to the end, where I found out that the trial that propelled Lincoln to the Presidency was NOT one that he lost! Actually much more interesting than the trial itself was some of the history of how jurisprudence evolved in America, especially the mostly rural western lands now known as the midwest.
frostbitsky's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
5.0
I had listened to another book by this author: John Adams Under Fire
The Founding Father's Fight for Justice in the Boston Massacre Murder Trial and I liked that very much so I then used an Audible credit in July 2021 for this title.
This was just as enjoyable and educational as John Adams Under Fire.
Courtroom transcripts were not that common in the 1800s and this was a special case. Mr. Hit (I think I am remembering his name correctly) was a pioneer in verbatim reporting. He was also a journalist and was threatened by the townsfolk to write the story "the right way." Ha! Somethings never change.
If it weren't for his transcripts being found in a shoebox in 1989, we wouldn't have this book.
The case was a tricky one - there was a family dispute but was it self-defense or pre-meditated murder? I say it was self-defense.
Besides hearing the details of the case we also learn about the history of lawyers, and the jury system, and the about Lincoln himself. Lincoln rarely took notes because they were a bother. So he spoke spontaneously and was very good at closing arguments. He rarely interrupted because he found it strategic to let it play out. That takes a lot of patience.
The book also touches on other cases to get an idea of Lincoln's method (he didn't defend a position he didn't believe), and the law at the time, which was wobbly. It was either based on British law or made up as they went along.
I found the book to be fascinating, even if the courtroom witnesses' accounts did become repetitive. But if you have ever served on a jury you know that lawyers and testimonies do that. Overall, it was excellent.
5 out of 5 Verdicts.
The Founding Father's Fight for Justice in the Boston Massacre Murder Trial and I liked that very much so I then used an Audible credit in July 2021 for this title.
This was just as enjoyable and educational as John Adams Under Fire.
Courtroom transcripts were not that common in the 1800s and this was a special case. Mr. Hit (I think I am remembering his name correctly) was a pioneer in verbatim reporting. He was also a journalist and was threatened by the townsfolk to write the story "the right way." Ha! Somethings never change.
If it weren't for his transcripts being found in a shoebox in 1989, we wouldn't have this book.
The case was a tricky one - there was a family dispute but was it self-defense or pre-meditated murder? I say it was self-defense.
Besides hearing the details of the case we also learn about the history of lawyers, and the jury system, and the about Lincoln himself. Lincoln rarely took notes because they were a bother. So he spoke spontaneously and was very good at closing arguments. He rarely interrupted because he found it strategic to let it play out. That takes a lot of patience.
The book also touches on other cases to get an idea of Lincoln's method (he didn't defend a position he didn't believe), and the law at the time, which was wobbly. It was either based on British law or made up as they went along.
I found the book to be fascinating, even if the courtroom witnesses' accounts did become repetitive. But if you have ever served on a jury you know that lawyers and testimonies do that. Overall, it was excellent.
5 out of 5 Verdicts.
suebrownreads's review against another edition
4.0
I enjoyed learning more about Lincoln. I didn't realize he was quite so popular during his lawyering days. He was a pretty famous lawyer during his time. He often turned down cases when he did not believe it would be ethical to defend the accused, and he also defended some folks for free if they did not have the money to pay. I wish we had more "honest Abes" in politics today! The reader had a pleasant voice, but he was not a very good storyteller/actor. I also did not like how the author jumped around from one case to another. At times it could be confusing.
dtab62's review against another edition
3.0
A mostly good, fast-paced account of Abraham Lincoln's last murder trial. Being an attorney himself, Abrams highlights some facets of 19th century law that the average reader wouldn't know. I'm glad he did, as these asides from the narrative were educational and interesting.
The angle that he used to tell the story is interesting, too. The trial is viewed through the eyes of the stenographer, which was a fairly new profession at the time. Using his transcript as a source ensured accuracy in the retelling of the story 150 years after the fact.
A couple of things caused me to give it less than five stars, though. The first was that at one point in the story the stenographer, a man named Hitt, just happened to be relaxing with a book during a break in the trial, and it just happened to be Frederick Douglass' book. Abrams, for some reason, saw fit to insert an extended passage from Douglass' book even though it had absolutely nothing to do with the trial at hand. During another break Hitt just happens to be dining with a southerner who asks him to tell him about Lincoln's views on slavery. Again, this had nothing to to with the subject at hand. It was obviously Abrams' insertion of slavery into the book. Since the trial had nothing to do with slavery - it was the murder of one white local by another white local over a prior argument - it felt awkward and contrived.
The other thing was that Abrams portrayed Lincoln during his final summation as a cartoonish, hillbilly, Matlockish lawyer. It would not have been out of place for Abrams to have him grabbing his suspenders with his thumbs and saying "now I'm no big city lawyer...". I'm sure it's true that Lincoln, like any orator, tailored his speech to his crowd. In this case, that would be 12 men from Springfield which, despite being the capital, was still a rather small western city. So it stands to reason that Lincoln would speak to them in a conversational, friendly tone. But Abrams contention that he wanted to portray himself as good ol' Abe is simply not plausible. Too many serious Lincoln scholars have stated time and time again that not even his closest friends called him Abe. To believe that he would be more laid back and informal speaking in court than he would with his closest friends and associates is a stereotype that was attached to him after his death.
Overall, though, I enjoyed this book and will undoubtedly seek out Abrams' other work.
The angle that he used to tell the story is interesting, too. The trial is viewed through the eyes of the stenographer, which was a fairly new profession at the time. Using his transcript as a source ensured accuracy in the retelling of the story 150 years after the fact.
A couple of things caused me to give it less than five stars, though. The first was that at one point in the story the stenographer, a man named Hitt, just happened to be relaxing with a book during a break in the trial, and it just happened to be Frederick Douglass' book. Abrams, for some reason, saw fit to insert an extended passage from Douglass' book even though it had absolutely nothing to do with the trial at hand. During another break Hitt just happens to be dining with a southerner who asks him to tell him about Lincoln's views on slavery. Again, this had nothing to to with the subject at hand. It was obviously Abrams' insertion of slavery into the book. Since the trial had nothing to do with slavery - it was the murder of one white local by another white local over a prior argument - it felt awkward and contrived.
The other thing was that Abrams portrayed Lincoln during his final summation as a cartoonish, hillbilly, Matlockish lawyer. It would not have been out of place for Abrams to have him grabbing his suspenders with his thumbs and saying "now I'm no big city lawyer...". I'm sure it's true that Lincoln, like any orator, tailored his speech to his crowd. In this case, that would be 12 men from Springfield which, despite being the capital, was still a rather small western city. So it stands to reason that Lincoln would speak to them in a conversational, friendly tone. But Abrams contention that he wanted to portray himself as good ol' Abe is simply not plausible. Too many serious Lincoln scholars have stated time and time again that not even his closest friends called him Abe. To believe that he would be more laid back and informal speaking in court than he would with his closest friends and associates is a stereotype that was attached to him after his death.
Overall, though, I enjoyed this book and will undoubtedly seek out Abrams' other work.
shaundell's review against another edition
3.0
In the summer of 1859, Abraham Lincoln faced his last murder trial. On the stand was a young man named "Peachy" Quinn Harrison, who, acting in self-defense, fatally stabbed a friend. Lincoln happened to be good friends with both of the men and mourned this sad experience. This story is told through the eyes of Robert Roberts Hitt, the court reporter, a Chicago man, who became acquainted with Lincoln during the Lincoln-Douglas debates through the state of Illinois.
papidoc's review against another edition
5.0
I thoroughly enjoyed this in depth account of Lincoln's last venture as attorney for the defense before he became president. It was a murder trial, but in the course of examining the ins and outs of the trial, we learn about other trials of which Lincoln was a part, and something of his methods and approach to trial lawyering. Given that Abrams is a lawyer himself, and a historian, it was a fascinating look at what could have been dull. I like history, but I know some do not; this one read almost like a novel, so don't let the fact that its history make you shy away from it. Excellent read!
heatherday916's review against another edition
2.0
The premise of this book sounds fascinating. I wanted to like it. But it just didn’t hold my interest. Maybe because I was listening to the audiobook? I found the through line of the storytelling to be difficult to follow. And I found I just didn’t care enough about the case to stay invested in the story. I got about halfway through but didn’t feel compelled to finish it.