A solid judicial opinion.
A judge ruminates on juries, past and present.
Dwyer, former trial lawyer, occasional law professor, and current US District Judge for the Western District of Washington, cheerfully admits that he set down his thoughts on weekend and holiday mornings, during those rare spare moments afforded the overworked members of the federal judiciary. The result hearkens back to another era, when learned men wrote unfussy books about professions they loved, eagerly substituting experience and good humor for overly structured analysis. Dwyer’s nominal topic is the jury, but he ranges far from it; what he’s truly recorded are his reflections on the adversarial system of justice to which he’s devoted a large portion of his life. None of his insights are strikingly original, but reading him is a pleasant experience, and Dwyer himself comes off as amiably avuncular, mentally agile, and decent to a fault. In fact, because his defense of the jury stems largely from the positive experiences juries have had in his courtroom, one has to wonder whether those experiences aren’t attributable to the man on the bench rather than to any advantages inherent to the system. Nonetheless, Dwyer builds up something of a case for the jury, lucidly touring English legal history before wending his way from Salem to HUAC to Lance Ito’s courtroom, documenting the dangers of a jury-less world along the way. And although his suggestions for how to reform the jury tend to be directed more at other aspects of the legal system—especially the pre-trial discovery rules—that doesn’t make them any less worthwhile. All in all, except for a couple of forays into comparative anthropology that border on the uncouth, there’s not much to object to here. Nor is there much to set the heart, or the mind, racing.
A solid judicial opinion.Pub Date: Jan. 18, 2002
ISBN: 0-312-27812-8
Page Count: 256
Publisher: Dunne/St. Martin's
Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010
Kirkus Reviews Issue: Nov. 1, 2001
Stricter than, say, Bergen Evans or W3 ("disinterested" means impartial — period), Strunk is in the last analysis...
Privately published by Strunk of Cornell in 1918 and revised by his student E. B. White in 1959, that "little book" is back again with more White updatings.
Stricter than, say, Bergen Evans or W3 ("disinterested" means impartial — period), Strunk is in the last analysis (whoops — "A bankrupt expression") a unique guide (which means "without like or equal").Pub Date: May 15, 1972
ISBN: 0205632645
Page Count: 105
Publisher: Macmillan
Review Posted Online: Oct. 28, 2011
Kirkus Reviews Issue: May 1, 1972
This is not the Nutcracker sweet, as passed on by Tchaikovsky and Marius Petipa. No, this is the original Hoffmann tale of 1816, in which the froth of Christmas revelry occasionally parts to let the dark underside of childhood fantasies and fears peek through. The boundaries between dream and reality fade, just as Godfather Drosselmeier, the Nutcracker's creator, is seen as alternately sinister and jolly. And Italian artist Roberto Innocenti gives an errily realistic air to Marie's dreams, in richly detailed illustrations touched by a mysterious light. A beautiful version of this classic tale, which will captivate adults and children alike. (Nutcracker; $35.00; Oct. 28, 1996; 136 pp.; 0-15-100227-4)
Pub Date: Oct. 28, 1996
ISBN: 0-15-100227-4
Page Count: 136
Publisher: Harcourt
Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010
Kirkus Reviews Issue: Aug. 15, 1996
BOOK REVIEW
BOOK REVIEW
© Copyright 2026 Kirkus Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Follow
Popular in this Genre
We can’t wait for you to join Kirkus!
It’s free and takes less than 10 seconds!
Already have an account? Log in.
OR
Sign in with GoogleTrouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.
Welcome Back!
OR
Sign in with GoogleTrouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.
