Of course this book is going to be subjective simply because there is no way to determine (via a point system or rating scale) which cases have the best closing arguments. With that being said, in response to Jerry Saperstein's review of the book, I have to say that it only takes a 2nd year law student to identify the genius involved with Vincent Bugliosi's closing arguments - in ANY of his cases. The only reason why his closing argument in the Manson case isn't considered one of his greatest is because for any competent lawyer it was a slam-dunk case (for the most part). But there is a reason why Bugliosi is considered the greatest trial lawyer that ever entered a courtroom........the man never makes mistakes and his closing arguments are second to none. Read about some of his other trials and you'll agree. (I recommend 'Til Death Us Do Part' and 'The Sea Will Tell'. I will agree with Saperstein that these entries cannot seriously be considered the greates in history, but they are good representations of above average, even memorable closing arguments.

This book is a compendium of great trial arguments from notable lawyers. I think it is a must read for trial lawyers.

The authors claim that these "greatest closing arguments in modern law" were chosen for the "quality of [their] summation, as well as for [their] historical significance." The immediate question is who is judging the quality of the summation and, more importantly, their historical significance?



The view here is obviously that left-wing causes have the most historical significance, though some cases, such as Nuremburg, are politically neutral. Clarence Darrow's summation in behalf of two young men who brutally murdered another is an argument against the death penalty. Many would consider the resulting verdict an injustice, compounded by early release of one of the murderers. Also, the fact that the case was argued in a Cook County, Illinois courtroom, one of the most corrupt jurisdictions in the nation, casts the power of this closing argument into doubt since the parents of the murderers were wealthy and in Cook County, money has always spoken loudly even when passed in silence from one hand to another.



Gerry Spence is without a doubt one of the most eloquent and effective litigators in the nation. But the science his Silkwood argument rests upon is, to some, suspect as were the alleged facts.



The closing arguments are presented with a wrapping of context, though it is a bit on the light side. With that in mind, the closing defense argument in the John DeLorean case is truly great, cataloging a series of government misdeeds. But the reader searching for political balance may be troubled by equally meritorious closing arguments in the Rosenberg and Alger Hiss cases.



Vincent Bugliosi's closing in the case against Manson and his followers is competent, but isn't great. It is a narrative that virtually any competent prosecutor could have put together. The Manson case involved celebrities, but otherwise wasn't much different than many murder cases of the same nature: groups of people motivated to murder. Johnny Cochran's closing in the O. J. Simpson case was far more powerful, in my opinion, far outclassing Bugliosi in persuasiveness.



The inclusion of Robert Jackson's closing at Nuremberg is puzzling. It was not an American trial. The guilt of the accused was beyond doubt, though law underpinning the tribunal was not. From the commentary, I derived the feeling that the authors were trying to rescue Jackson's reputation from his disastrous cross examination of Hermann Goering.



William Kunstler, in the opinion of many, was a living insult to the practice of law. The authors describe his closing in the Chicago Seven case as a "four-part clinic in how to excel in persuasive argument." Others might see it and Kunstler's behavior in a circus presentation of how to flout the law. All of Kunstler's clients were convicted: so much for the persuasiveness of his argument. The convictions were overturned owing to the trial judge's behavior. Again, this was in Cook County, Illinois where for many years both the state and federal judiciaries were of abysmal quality, products for the most part of the Democratic political machine. (Many of the "murderers" convicted under the current Chicago Mayor, Richard M. Daley, had their convictions overturned because DNA testing became available. At least one Cook County judge accepted bribes to free a murderer. Great place.)



The authors note that it is probably "terribly presumptuous" of them to choose the ten greatest arguments - and they are correct. They admit to choosing only "noteworthy" trials . . . and it is there that they blinded themselves to a far wider range of great closing arguments.



All the arguments are interesting and all the lawyers who made them were clearly eloquent, so more so than others. But to call these ten the greatest in modern law? I think not.



Jerry

The authors claim that these "greatest closing arguments in modern law" were chosen for the "quality of [their] summation, as well as for [their] historical significance." The immediate question is who is judging the quality of the summation and, more importantly, their historical significance?

The view here is obviously that left-wing causes have the most historical significance, though some cases, such as Nuremburg, are politically neutral. Clarence Darrow's summation in behalf of two young men who brutally murdered another is an argument against the death penalty. Many would consider the resulting verdict an injustice, compounded by early release of one of the murderers. Also, the fact that the case was argued in a Cook County, Illinois courtroom, one of the most corrupt jurisdictions in the nation, casts the power of this closing argument into doubt since the parents of the murderers were wealthy and in Cook County, money has always spoken loudly even when passed in silence from one hand to another.

Gerry Spence is without a doubt one of the most eloquent and effective litigators in the nation. But the science his Silkwood argument rests upon is, to some, suspect as were the alleged facts.

The closing arguments are presented with a wrapping of context, though it is a bit on the light side. With that in mind, the closing defense argument in the John DeLorean case is truly great, cataloging a series of government misdeeds. But the reader searching for political balance may be troubled by equally meritorious closing arguments in the Rosenberg and Alger Hiss cases.

Vincent Bugliosi's closing in the case against Manson and his followers is competent, but isn't great. It is a narrative that virtually any competent prosecutor could have put together. The Manson case involved celebrities, but otherwise wasn't much different than many murder cases of the same nature: groups of people motivated to murder. Johnny Cochran's closing in the O. J. Simpson case was far more powerful, in my opinion, far outclassing Bugliosi in persuasiveness.

The inclusion of Robert Jackson's closing at Nuremberg is puzzling. It was not an American trial. The guilt of the accused was beyond doubt, though law underpinning the tribunal was not. From the commentary, I derived the feeling that the authors were trying to rescue Jackson's reputation from his disastrous cross examination of Hermann Goering.

William Kunstler, in the opinion of many, was a living insult to the practice of law. The authors describe his closing in the Chicago Seven case as a "four-part clinic in how to excel in persuasive argument." Others might see it and Kunstler's behavior in a circus presentation of how to flout the law. All of Kunstler's clients were convicted: so much for the persuasiveness of his argument. The convictions were overturned owing to the trial judge's behavior. Again, this was in Cook County, Illinois where for many years both the state and federal judiciaries were of abysmal quality, products for the most part of the Democratic political machine. (Many of the "murderers" convicted under the current Chicago Mayor, Richard M. Daley, had their convictions overturned because DNA testing became available. At least one Cook County judge accepted bribes to free a murderer. Great place.)

The authors note that it is probably "terribly presumptuous" of them to choose the ten greatest arguments - and they are correct. They admit to choosing only "noteworthy" trials . . . and it is there that they blinded themselves to a far wider range of great closing arguments.

All the arguments are interesting and all the lawyers who made them were clearly eloquent, so more so than others. But to call these ten the greatest in modern law? I think not.

Jerry

After years of arguing caseslaw, motions, picking juries, interviewing witnesses, going through all the day to day protocol that trial work demands, one may forget at times how important is the job of a lawyer. But this book reminds the practioner that he/she is a part of a wonderful system of justice. Not many cases will go down as "The Greatest" but to your clients, it is often the defining moment of their lives. And this book helps you reconnect to the reasons why you sought a lifetime devoted to the noblest of professions.
Reading about the great lawyers of in our history is humbling and worthwhile. Reflection is helpful as you try to regain a little lost idealism. And if you are a new lawyer and have all of you ideals from law school still in tact, reading this book will help you realize how important it is to never lose them. Great book for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.

If only for Spence's closing in the Silkwood case, this book is worth every penny. A real thing of subtle and effective beauty, that closing contains so many incredible and useful techniques, it's just plain stunning. The subtle allignment of Spence to the jurors in groups in which Spence and the jurors can work together are wonderful and powerful -- Spence places himself and the jurors by turns in a self built retirement community, and in the class of local state citizens all the while emphasizing that the cause of the need for retirement and the genesis of Spence's new found home state membership is the defense's prolongation of trial -- wonderful. The rhyming "if the lion gets away, Kerr McGee must pay" is hard-to-forget and masterfully so. The analysis that proceeds each transcript is useful and informative. Buy it if you can.

Describing or reading a speech is like describing color. I guess you can do it, but nothing is the same as being there and listening and experience a great speech. There is a poetry to the delivery which is missing from a dry read. Yet, if you want to read some of the great closes from the past, this is a good place to start.

This books picks 10 closing arguements which the authors state are the greatest of history. Whenever you have such a book, of course, people will differ on which closes should be included. By necessity, for mass appeal, oftentimes "famous" speeches, which may not be so great will be included while less famous speeches, which were much better, will not be the cut. I thought the ones chosen, overall, were very good.

Personally I liked the ones I read. My favorite was Clarance Darrow's close in the Leopald and Loeb case. It was great because it was effective. Everyone in this case knew they were guilty and wanted them to die. How did Clarence Darrow change the judges mind? It was in his words and his delivery. This was an effective speech.

There are others here which I also found very good. We hear the closing speech from the Nuremberg trials (which I would not have included because I think the win was almost preordained), the close in the Karen Silkwood civil case, the DeLorean defense close and six others. This is a good book and a good read. I would recommend it most to history fans, but I think some of the general public would also enjoy it.

Ladies and Gentlemen... kills two birds with one stone by providing an eduactional and intruiging experience. You will hit your curiousity spot by learning what the landmark trials of the United States were all about, and you will also get locked into some of the most persuasive literature I have ever seen.

While those who are interested in the legal field are virtually guaranteed to be interested in reading Ladies and Gentlemen..., you don't need to be anything close to a lawyer to appreciate this. This anthology of closing arguments teaches the reader how to connect/communicate with others. After reading a series of closing arguments, I learned different strategies to use to relate to a group of people to get my point across (in this case, a jury). This book is great to any businessman, negotiator, or even those who want to improve their basic social, everyday, oral skills.

I just bought this book for ten of my friends for the past holiday season, and I got star reports from all of them. I recommend this innovative book to all types of readers.

--Emanuel Abrishami

These are not only not the greatest closing arguments in modern law, there are barely competent. Okay, maybe this is a slight overstatement--I liked Spence on Silkwood, but the rest are lackluster. The title should be, "A few ponderous closing arguments given in high-profile cases."

These are not only not the greatest closing arguments in modern law, there are barely competent. Okay, maybe this is a slight overstatement--I liked Spence on Silkwood, but the rest are lackluster. The title should be, "A few ponderous closing arguments given in high-profile cases."

As a reader of only non-fiction pieces, this was an excellent book. It takes a short look at the case itself, explaining what its all about, then brings you to the closing argument. I don't know if you can truly call them the "greatest" closing arguments, but they must be some of the best. The book held my attention from cover to cover. Of particular interest to me was Gerry spence on the Karen Silkwood case, Darrow on Loeb and Leopold, and the John Delorean defense, all high profile, and all well thought out defenses, The Delorean defense is sure to suprise you!

Truthfully, I wish I had read the reviews before I purchased this book. Not that it is bad read - it certainly is not - but because the title is misleading (e.g., one is led to believe this work focuses on improving trial advocacy skills.) Within twenty or so pages, the reader soon finds Lief's effort to actually be a historical piece with a minimum of analysis. Rather dry but then again so is almost anything that is repetitive in nature.

First, the ten "greatest" closing arguments fail to rise to that level because it is impossible to discern the criteria for such a standard. The author admits to as much in the introduction when he states that it is terribly presumptuous to make such a claim.

Second, while I gave the author much leeway in the above area precisely because he admitted to the outrageousness of the claim, I was nevertheless extremely disappointed because of the noticeable strain in attempting to include a selection comprised of both famous cases (which, of course, do not always have great closing arguments) and great closing arguments (which, conversely, are not limited to famous cases.) What the author winds up with is a disjointed mish-mash of trials that fails to establish a cohesive central theme.

Finally, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury" is almost completely devoid of any critical analysis. As any trial record can be accessed by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to the appropriate agency, a book purporting to contain the most influential closing arguments in American history should offer the reader much more than just mere recitations. Truly, this facet of the work manifests an extreme oversight.

A few quick comments before I conclude. Skip the two Darrow arguments - they'll just knock you out (seventy-five years ago he may have been eloquent but, by today's standards, he is a complete bore.) Similar to the above, the Nuremberg argument drags on indefinitely. However, be sure to read the Silkwood and Manson cases (trust me, you'll be on the edge of your seat the entire time.) The other five cases, while interesting from a historical perspective, don't really add much to the reading experience.

In short, recommended as light reading over the weekend but only if you wish to improve your understanding of the development of the American legal system.

Excellent book very intresting. Easy to read you don't have to be a lawyer to read. The Charles Manson chapter was especially intresting.

The authors have done a fantastic job of resurrecting some of the finest closing arguments of all time. From Gerry Spence's closing in Silkwood (perhaps the greatest closing argument ever) to the flair and panache of William Kuntsler, this book provides excitement and intrigue at the turn of every page. Completely engrossing. . . . I recommend this book for anyone who has an interest in trial practice, or plain old human drama.

I found this book a must for anyone interested in famous trials. I'm an historian and not a lawyer and found it to be just what I needed to increase my knowledge of specific trials at crucial points in history.

For example, the chapter on the Nazi war crimes trials allowed me to fully understand the complexities of an international war tribunal.

Darrow's closing argument in the Leopold and Loeb case was one of the most erudite pieces of logic this writer has ever come across.

I've given this book to many of my lawyer friends as presents. They enjoyed it as much as I did.