Much as I fought the anticipation of hating this book before even cracking the spine, I knew it was a losing battle. After all, its primary author was Mark Geragos, whose only competition for biggest media whore ever was New York’s beloved mayor, Ed “How’m I doing?” Koch.
Aside: Mayor Koch was available for comment, but no one asked.Working through the introduction, my worst suspicions were realized, as Geragos explained that society needed to know the inside story of the criminal justice system, and it thus fell on his broad shoulders to explain it to them. It was just a huge void, the rest of us so utterly inconsequential in comparison to him, that the words from his fingers would enlighten a nation that otherwise lived lives of quiet desperation with the Word of Geragos. I was thrilled at the prospect of ripping this egomaniac a new one.
And then something happened. As I read the book, I began to seethe. Dammit, the bastard wrote a good book. It was good. Despite his dalliances into the great glory of Geragos, name-dropper extraordinaire, the book is written with alarming normalcy, not the pomposity of the only guy capable of informing society of the secrets of the legal world. It was straight forward, easy to read, and reflected a sense of humor much like one might find here. In exposing the ugly secrets of how the criminal justice system ended up in its current state of hot mess, Geragos attributes the societal influences to politics, the O.J. Simpson trial and the Rise of the Angry Blond White Women. The first is fairly obvious, having been beaten to death though Geragos handles it well. The second, the O.J. trial, is the stuff that one would absolutely expect of Geragos, it having been his ticket to media stardom. Indeed, he can’t let go, making such announcements in the book as
The verdict shocked most of the country, but it did not surprise defense lawyers in L.A. Almost the entire defense bar believed that O.J. was guilty, but we also felt there was very little chance this jury was going to convict.See what he did there? In two sentences, he elevated himself to omniscience while reducing Johnnie Cochran to mere functionary in a trial that couldn’t be lost. I couldn’t help but wonder what Winona Ryder thought of that. But then he gets into his Angry Blond White Women, who didn’t have to be Blond, White or Women.
In skewering Ann Coulter, whose specialty was listed on TV as “constitutional lawyer,” he writes:
Eventually, we decided that “constitutional lawyer” was a synomym for “unemployed lawyer incapable of holding down a real legal job.”It’s unclear what role Pat Harris played in the book, other than providing occasional asides which serve to provide a juxtaposition of humility and humor to Geragos. His aside about Coulter left me with an image I can’t shake:
In fact, in 2012, Ann Coulter gave a speech to a conservative convention in which she made a series of Clinton penis jokes. Fifteen years later! Fifteen years later and she still has Clinton’s penis on her brain.Classic. And the discussion of Coulter is downright kind in comparison to Nancy Grace, about whom no epithet is spared. Notably, Geragos quotes from the blog of our compadre, Jonathan Turley, about Grace, indicating that either I’ve been far too kind to her or he’s a professor and I’m not.
It wouldn’t be a book by Geragos if it didn’t devolve into a discussion of his celebrity clients and cases, which I skipped over after a bit because I just couldn’t care less. After all, it’s his ego trip so he’s allowed to pander to his fan base, even if his mother and both friends already knows his stories.
But his discussion of the system, the deep and nasty flaws reflected in our wishful embrace of brilliant and unbiased judges, honest and hard-working prosecutors (other than his father, who was perfect) and jurors, in whom the desperate pin their last hope for justice but who couldn’t decide the time of day correctly if they had the atomic clock in the jury room, is right on target. He hits hard and true.
It’s not that Mistrial by Penguin Books offers any revelations about the system to those who have paid attention all along, but rather confirms what we’ve been talking about all along, and does so with some interesting stories and turns of phrase. Geragos’ perspective is left coast, and very much the view from the seat across from Larry King, but he still sees it, and calls it, the way it is.
Much as it breaks my heart to say this, it’s a book worth getting and reading, if you’re interested, as the subtitle says, in “an inside look at how the criminal justice system works…and sometimes doesn’t,” or are considering setting up a Mark Geragos fan club in your neighborhood. It’s actually a really good book, making me despise Geragos all the more.
________________
A word of thanks for Mark Bennett, without whom I probably would have abandoned the book after the introduction, who scolded me for being such a hater. You were right. I was wrong. Thank you.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi Scott. Interesting summary…thanks for writing. I don’t know him like you do, so you exposed me to a few different sides of him. Also, I think it might be time for you to write your own book. (If you have already done so, I beg forgiveness. Well, maybe not beg, but ask.)
If you don’t know him like I do, then you didn’t watch Larry King Live.
“… Nancy Grace, about whom no epithet is spared …”
How about Allred and her comparison of his client, Scott Peterson, to garbage (complete with bag in her hand)? I’m confused about how this enhanced the reputation of the bar or the law, or how it ensured the trial of this man was conducted in a fair and unbiased manner.
And then there was her clowning around with the boat Geragos used to conduct perfectly reasonable experiments to test the state’s case. This also helped to ensure the highest standards of ethical behavior?
Buy the book and find out. Foreshadowing: Allred is in there, and Geragos never dated her.
Hello,
Your website blog.simplejustice.us has been well out-spoken by a great friend of mine, he referred me to your site and I must say that I am really fascinated by your site’s content.
My name is Cosmo Miller and I am the Affiliate manager at jamespublishing.com. James Publishing is a legal book publisher with a proven track record of success. You can have a glimpse at one of our websites through this link [link deleted.]
I wanted to take a moment to reach out regarding an opportunity for us to partner together, whereby you’d be earning commissions ranging from 25-35% by promoting our products.
Just Visit this link to join our Affiliate program [link deleted] fast, easy and 100% FREE to sign up.
Best Regards,
Cosmo/Affiliate program manager,
Email: [email protected]
[Link deleted.]
.
Dear Wisened (or perhaps Wizened) One:
I have a question for you, based on your life experience. The subtitle, “an inside look at how the criminal justice system works…and sometimes doesn’t” got me thinking a bit. And now it is time to learn, from your perspective, more about what it means that the criminal justice system “sometimes doesn’t” work.
Does it mean, in your experience and based on how you strongly believe it should work for all stakeholders involved, that it:
A) Almost never works really well (works poorly 90% or more of time)
B) Frequently (75% or more of the time) doesn’t work well
C) Often (50% or more of the time) doesn’t work well
D) Less often (50% or less of the time) doesn’t work well
E) Not very often (25% or less of the time) doesn’t work well
F) Infrequently (10% or less of the time) doesn’t work well
G) Almost never (2% or less of the time) doesn’t work well
And there are free deluxe, extra-large maple bacon donuts waiting for you for each verified correct answer . . .
.
Well, hello there, Cosmo. Normally, a spam comment like yours would get tossed without a second thought, but since it’s got that perfect combo of spammiosity and illiteracy, I couldn’t stand the irony of it coming from a publishing company. Damn, I couldn’t have made James Publishing look stupider than you did.
Well done. And if anyone is wondering, this was 110% legit spam from James.
First, show me the donut and then I’ll answer.
.
How’s this work fer ya??
And I do suspect you have no problem betting donuts to dollars, do you?? Cuz a donut like that rendered above is, as they said on the MasterCard commercials, PRICELESS . . .
.
I know that donut. We’ve been intimate.
So my response is D, about 50% or less of the time. It’s not that it works great the rest of the time, or that the outcome is wrong 50% of the time, but this is all about rights and process, not outcome, using the “N” guilty men approach.
Awaiting donut. Do not disappoint me.
.
So this leads me to a more important follow-up question:
Do you think I could be elected President of the United States if I simply bought each registered voter a maple bacon donut like that rendered above the day before the next election (or, as they sometimes say in Japan, the next erection)??
Because, I’m thinking yes, even though I would probably lose the hardcore Jewish and Muslim vote due to my cloven hoof policy position. . .
I feel I would make a fine benevolent dictator and should I be elected, our United States of America will never be the same, that I promise . . .
.
Yes. Yes I do.
.
Then I’d like to offer you the veep slot right now, or, maybe better still, the head of Homeland Security position, as you wish . . .
But only if you can assure me that you can deliver the criminal vote; it’s an important voter segment because, from what I read, we are all pretty much criminals . . .
.
We’ll talk about it after the donut arrives.
his fellow, though former, media whore was Michael Sherman.
also, for accurate OJ reading, you cannot omit Vincent Bugliosi’s “Outrage.”
Mickey was bad, but he wasn’t in Geragos’ league. In any event, Mickey’s fallen on hard times, so I wouldn’t kick him when he’s down. And as for Bugliosi providing the prosecutor’s perspective on life, that has nothing to do with this post. Please, focus.
“Focus”….OJ was in the text of the post, as were references to prosecutors. So sorry that my peripheral vision distracted me from your defter focus.
As to Mickey not in Geragos’ league, I beg to differ. He couldn’t stop himself, during the time he was allegedly representing Michael Skakel, from
gracing every blabber fest on the air waves. Bad times for him Sherman? Skakel got how many years?
The doughnut plays an important role in the CJS but this is going too far.
Every word/name mentioned in a post isn’t an invitation for free association by any person with a keyboard and internet connection toward whatever tangent strikes their fancy. You’re free to do so, just not here. As for Mickey, your argument reflects its inherent error. Don’t worry if you don’t see it. Others will.
But you do make one point worthy of a response: Mickey was a fame whore, and may have done a less than effective job for Skakel, for which Mickey bears responsibility. But Mickey didn’t arrest, charge, indict or prosecute Skakel. If Skakel is falsely convicted, lay blame where it belongs and in its proper proportion rather than simplistically asking how many years Skakel got as if Mickey did this to him.