I bought this a long time ago and never got around to reading it. I used to like Steve Martini, but either my tastes have changed or this is just a really bad effort. The whole premise is ridiculous. The reader is supposed to be awestruck because slavery is still in the constitution because it's amended rather than re-written? I suppose that those who attend school in Florida might not already be aware of that fact, but anybody with a junior high education should! It just bugged the heck out of me. And I don't remember his other books getting quite as bogged down with the minutiae of a trial, but I found myself skimming through all of the court scenes. And, I know this is petty, but Martini has a TV reporter calling a witness "alluring." Really? I have never heard a professional reporter describing anyone as alluring. The whole thing was just weird. Not a fan. ( )

Mystery with an slightly unusual premise - a supposedly long hidden Jefferson letter regarding the constitution. Some of the historical stuff was interesting and the trial writing was strong, as always. Enjoyed the book. ( )

Trial chronology includes huge jumps and gaps.
Hard to see that any actual defense was given during the trial for Madriani's client accused of murdering sociopathic best-selling author.
Betterto listen to than read. ( )

Without a doubt, it is a compelling legal thriller - Steve Martini with fan favorite lead character, attorney Paul Madriani. However, there is an editing error in which I was so surprised to discover in a NY Times Bestseller & from a master author. Part of the error must be accepted by David Highfill, editor, who is recognized in "Acknowledgments" by the author at the end of the novel "for his careful attention to detail". David, you missed it as did other staff at Harper! The error does not detract from the page-turner, just surprises a former copy editor as follows:
Page 60-
"Finally he motions us toward a set of double doors off the entry hall. 'We can talk in here. Janice, maybe you can bring us some coffee. What would you like?'
'Just some water,' I tell him.
'Bottled water, Janice.
He asks Sarah, and she begs off again.
Page 62-
'You might want to think about getting the rights,' he says. 'Depending on what happens, the level of publicity.' He's looking at me from across the table over the top of his coffee cup.
Page 64-
Before he can answer, the door behind me opens. It's the secretary with a tray bearing a carafe of coffee, three cups, and accoutrements-sugar, cream, teaspoons-and two bottles of water.
He pours himself a cup of coffee-black, no sugar. I take one of the bottled waters and look at Sarah. She declines."
Did you catch the error? How can character Richard Bonguard have a coffee cup on page 62 when the three (3) characters walked into an empty conference room on page 60 and the secretary delivered the tray on page 64? Just sayin'. :) ( )

See this review (and others) at http://www.thedomestichick.wordpress.com.

I enjoy a good legal thriller or suspense novel, and I am always looking for a new one to read. I had never, surprisingly enough, read any Steve Martini novels. The novel was okay but it did not make an overwhelming impression. If I had not read other reviews, I am not sure I would jump up to buy another novel by Mr. Martini.

The book started with some interesting scenes, just vague enough to leave you wondering what would happen. At the introduction of the “Jefferson Letter”, I still held some hope this could be crafted in a credible way while also gaining momentum with the suspense. Unfortunately, this did not happen. I was disappointed in the premise that the language already existing in the Constitution would incite so many riots and public unrest. I just don’t find this very plausible. I would have agreed that it might create much discussion as well as some interesting debates – just not to the level that the author created in the novel. As the book progressed, I realized that the “Jefferson Letter” bit would also stretch the limits of credibility. The book made a good point on this, since the characters spoke of it not being necessary for the letter to be authentic to be able to create the furor it seemed capable of generating. In this way, the letter (whether found to be fraud or not) would at least have to fit within my limits of credibility as a reader – and it failed.

I did like many of the characters in the book – even if I didn’t like what they represented, I thought the author did a good job of fleshing them out and making them interesting. This is with one exception: Trisha Scott. I found her flat and uninteresting. Her character, along with the unreal plot twists at the end, made me sigh and want to throw up my hands in frustration a couple of times in the last chapter. Her character just was not believable to me. On the other hand, I loved Herman. I laughed out loud several times at his courtroom scenes, and I found myself mentally casting him with some Hollywood favorites. If a character “works” for me, that’s something I end up doing.

I also liked the courtroom scenes in general. The descriptions were complete without being boring. The inner complexities of criminal litigation were explored without unduly boring the reader as well. The entire courtroom section of the book was extremely well crafted. Since that took up a large part of the book, it made the difference for me in a rating of “okay” versus “I didn’t like it.”

All in all, I enjoyed the book. For a reader wanting a light read, this could be an enjoyable diversion. For someone looking for an intense legal thriller, your better bet would be a different novel. For me – I am going to at least try another novel by Steve Martini and give the writer a second chance to impress.

My conclusion: A solid “okay” in my book; grab it at the used bookstore or borrow a copy (library or a friend). ( )