Michael Ponsor

A rip roaring action adventure that had me spinning, the pages were flying by so fast. The book actually had me sweating while reading about the white water part of the trip and when the husband was trying to climb that cliff. That really had me holding my breath!

An excellent read that I could not put down. And, these bad guys are REALLY bad! I kept hoping for something bad to happen to them.

Thanks to Skyhorse Publishing and Net Galley for providing me with a free e-galley in exchange for an honest, unbiased review.… (plus d'informations)

Judge David Norcross is young and a little new as a federal judge in Springfield. He has his work cut out for him when a gang shooting in Holyoke gets tried in his court, and the accused may face the death penalty if found guilty.

I don't read a lot of courtroom thrillers, but I'm the daughter of a lawyer and can say the courtroom scenes were some of the most believable I've read - and you'd hope they'd be authentic, because the author is a judge. The tension of the case is palpable, and the stakes are high. Readers know more than any character because the points of view shift between several characters. This meant I didn't really feel connected to any one, but it was an entertaining read and kept me wondering what would happen. The local setting meant I could picture a lot of the locations, and interspersed with the trial was an account of an historical trial in Northampton of two Irishmen accused of killing Marcus Lyon in the 1800s in Wilbraham, Massachusetts.… (plus d'informations)

A hanging judge might be one who is prone to favor capital punishment or one whose is undecided (i.e., hanging) on the appropriateness of the death penalty. Ponsor—himself a judge who has presided over a death penalty case—does an excellent job of presenting the legal complexities of these proceedings and the nuances in how these decisions are made. His intent is to present the facts, but not to provide an opinion. “Here is how a death penalty trial actually works. Now we can talk.”

His protagonist is Judge David Norcross, an amiable guy who is driven to conduct a fair trial that would be unassailable from a legal perspective. His thoughts on the morality of capital punishment are never revealed, but his focus on the overriding importance of fairness in death penalty cases is obvious. Ponsor’s decision to write a legal thriller from the perspective of a judge certainly is unusual and gives him the opportunity to highlight subtle legal issues that often are not prominent in Grisham or Thurow, where action seems more important. The downside to this decision is a plot that seems formulaic and slow. In fact, the only action takes place in the first few pages when a drive-by shooting takes the life or a gang-banger and an innocent bystander. An off duty cop chases down the driver but does not manage to get the shooter.

The bulk of the novel consists of character development and legal maneuvering. Although interesting, it does not much of a thriller make. Ponsor tries to show that the players in his drama are real people who are fallible. This, along with the various legal machinations, is intellectually interesting, but falls short of the usual fare offered in thrillers.

The defendant, Clarence “Moon” Hudson, is a young African-American man with a criminal past. He represents an intimidating presence in the courtroom, set in Western Massachusetts, a place where young Black men are in the minority and a bit scary. Ponsor clearly attempts to emphasize the importance of community prejudice on death penalty decisions by introducing the true story of Dominick Daley and James Halligan, two innocent Irish immigrants who were executed in this same community in 1806 for a murder where the evidence consisted of little more than the testimony of a young boy, but a time and place where anti-Catholic bigotry was quite common.

Most of characters in the novel seem to be clichés of the genre. Bill Redpath is an empathetic but curmudgeonly defense attorney. The Hispanic female defense attorney is highly competent and driven to get a conviction. Clare Lindemann is a sexy divorcee who has an affair with the judge and introduces the issue of how easy it is for loose talk to prejudice a jury. We also have the usual types who inhabit these novels: helpful industrious law clerks, cops who are tempted to get a conviction, gang members and other criminal types who have their own agendas, dubious witnesses who either lie or misremember what they saw and even a crazy old lady who offers comic relief.

Ponsor’s strength clearly is his insider knowledge of the nuances that can underlie judicial rulings and the legal strategies that are employed by both parties. He depicts these exceedingly well: testimony the jury can and cannot hear; the need to have the stenographer present at sidebar conferences; attempts by the lawyers to telegraph information to the jury through subtle words and body language, the importance of jury selection. Through these subtleties, Ponsor conveys the idea that these proceedings are often more about procedure, politics and theatrics than innocence and guilt and a prime function of the judge is to mitigate these effects on the decision.

In an interview, Ponsor stated that “A legal regime permitting capital punishment comes with a fairly heavy price. I wanted people to know this.” The burden is tremendous because innocent people can and do die (consider the executions of Daly and Halligan) while guilty people may go free. The ending of the novel, although unsatisfying from a storytelling perspective, does raise well the issue of fallibility.… (plus d'informations)

This was very well written. I enjoyed the book very much. It was about a man Clarence " Moon" Hudson who was being tried in federal court for the murder of two people. I won't go into the logistics of the trial but the author did an excellent job touching on everyone's life. He kept what could have been a dull book very interesting. I do hate how the prosecution side played so dirty to win their case. I am not saying that they won only that they didn't play fair. It really made me angry. I was happy, but not happy with the ending of the book. I think if you read this you may understand my feeling. But overall good read.… (plus d'informations)