A recent Grey's Anatomy episode, "Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word" (season 10, episode 9), made it clear that the show should stick to medicine and stay out of the courtroom.  Or at least hire a legal consultant when a storyline turns legal.

In the episode, Calley went to trial in a medical malpractice case.  The mistakes throughout the episode were many and cringeworthy. 

To start with, a period of four months supposedly passed between the time of the act of malpractice (a hip replacement surgery that ended with both legs amputated from an Olympic snowboarded) to the time of trial.  Four months!  Anyone who has had even the slightest interaction with America's court systems knows that nothing moves that quickly.  Least of all a civil lawsuit involving detailed medical information that goes to a jury trial.  Four years would be slightly more realistic.

But, I understand there are more important time needs in the story, so I'll move on.  An even more flagrant problem, and one that had no requirement in teh story, was the confusion between a civil lawsuit, which this was, and a criminal prosecution, which this wasn't.  The writers do not seem to understand something very basic that most Americans should know about their legal system.

There are two completely separate and different legal systems in our country.  Civil cases are where people (or corporations or governments) sue other people (or corporations or governments) for some wrong.  If the person suing (plaintiff) wins, they are usually awarded money.

Criminal cases are where the government (and only the government), whether state, city, or federal, charges someone with a crime.  If the government wins, the defendant might be fined, and/or be sent to jail or prison, or in some cases even be put to death.

The terms used in each of these two systems are often different.  And this is where Grey's Anatomy got so embarrassingly off-track.  After the plaintiff's attorney finished questioning a witness, he exclaimed, "The prosecution rests."  Since this was a civil lawsuit, there was no "prosecution."  There was only a plaintiff. 

SPOILER ALERT  At the end, when the verdict was read, the jury foreperson announced, "Not guilty."  Again, since this was a civil suit, no one could be found guilty or not guilty.  Those terms are only used when someone has been charged with a crime.

There were several more minor errors throughout the show.  Most of these problems could have been easily corrected by having a legal consultant read through the script and/or be present for filming. 

The result of so many basic and easily-fixable errors was that the show looked poorly researched and inauthentic.  If their medical errors are as bad as their legal ones, I have to seriously question this show's credibility.  Not that a medical or legal show has to bee 100% accurate, but such basic mistakes can seriously undermine the show.

To avoid similar mistakes, get your free writer's guide revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.

Gone Girl was an exciting and fast read. 

The basic premise of the book is that a woman goes missing, and her husband is suspected of murdering her. 

There are twists - big and small - throughout the book.  It keeps you guessing to the end.  I really can't say too much about the story because I don't want to give anything away.  It's best to read this book without knowing too much because part of the enjoyment in reading it came from the unexpected turns the story and characters take.

The narrator alternates every chapter, back and forth from the point-of-view of the husband and the wife.  The book is like watching a good Dateline episode.  But it's even better because you get insight into the psyche of both the suspect and the victim.

Although none of the characters are very likeable, the writing is crisp and clever.  It was hard to put down. 

I would highly recommend Gone Girl to anyone who enjoys murder mysteries.  (Get the book by clicking the photo or link above or below.)

Update: I read and reviewed one of Gillian Flynn's other novels, Dark Places, which I liked even better than Gone Girl.  I have also read her first novel, Sharp Objects, which I will review soon.

Get my free writer's guide revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.

The American Bar Association released a list of what its panel of judges has determined to be the 25 Greatest Law Novels Ever.  Here are a few of my favorites that also made their list:

To Kill A Mockingbrid by Harper Lee is one of my favorite all-time books - law or not.  And I'm certainly not alone.  Harper Lee won the Pulitzer Prize for this novel, and Gregory Peck won an Oscar for his protrayal of Atticus Finch in the movie version.  Atticus defends a black man accused of raping a white woman in depression-era Alabama.  This story has themes of race, class, and justice, but it is told through the eyes of a child.  If you haven't read it since high school (or maybe never did), it's worth another look. 

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky is an fascinating psychological study in guilt.  The main character's increasing paranoia after committing murder is something that has stayed with me for years.

A Time to Kill by John Grisham is my favorite Grisham book.  This was his first book.  It is based on a real-life case.  The book is a story of race and revenge in the south with great characters.  The movie (starring Matthew McConaughey, Sandra Bullock, and Samuel L. Jackson is also excellent.

The Firm by John Grisham is not my favorite Grisham book (that award goes to A Time to Kill), but it's an exciting read.  A top graduate from Harvard Law School, Mitch McDeere is recruited to a high-paying job with great benefits.  He soon discovers that his new firm is a cover-up for serious criminal activity, and that his life and career are on the line.  The movie starring Tom Cruise is a faithful rendition of the book.

Presumed Innocent by Scott Turow is about a prosecutor accused of murdering his colleague/mistress.  This was Turow's first novel, and it's filled with political intrigue and legal maneuvering.  The movie starring Harrison Ford is a great rendition of the book.

The Stranger by Albert Camus revolves around the murder trial of Meursault. Meursault's lack of emotion is interpreted as a lack of remorse, and he is condemned to the guillotine.  But facing death, he finds himself oddly comforted by the simple fact of his own life.

And here are a few on my To-Read List:

Anatomy of a Murder by Robert Traver is based on a real life case.  A man kills his wife's rapist and claims the insanity defense at trial.  Robert Traver was the pen name of a Michigan Supreme Court Justice, John D. Voelker.  I've used the movie (starring James Stewart and directed by Otto Preminger) in my criminal law and procedure classes as a tool to teach the insanity defense.

Native Son by Richard Wright is also based on a true story.  It follows the life of Bigger Thomas, a young Chicago black man whose discomfort with whites drives him deeper and deeper into trouble for reasons he cannot seem to explain, and results in him being condemned to death for two murders.

And Honorable Mention goes to:

In Cold Blood by Truman Capote is a nonfiction true crime book written in the style of a novel.  It was one of the first to be written this way, and it remains one of the best.  For a great behid-the-scenes look at both this book and To Kill a Mockingbird (above), check out the movie Capote.   Philip Seymour Hoffman won an Oscar for his prtrayal of the author.

Do you agree or disagree with these choices?  Let me know!

If you are a writer, check out my free writer's guide revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.

The full name of the book is a mouthful:  "Wanted:  Gentleman Bank Robber:  The True Story of Leslie Ibsen Rogge, One of the FBI's Most Elusive Criminals."   The author is Dane Batty.  In the Introduction, you learn that Batty is the subject's nephew.   As you read further, it quickly becomes apparent that Leslie Rogge is the true author.

This is not your typical true crime book.  The stories are told largely in the first person by the Gentleman Bank Robber himself.  Most of the book is a compilation of Rogge's letters from prison.  This makes for an intimate and unique read.  There were times I wished other perspectives or more background information was included, but overall this was an interesting read.

The book reads like a how-to for robbing banks, stealing cars, and living on the run.  Rogge seems to take pride and glee in his robberies.  There are lessons on starting a car with no key, creating realistic car papers, false IDs, and, of course, bank robbery.  

Rogge was methodical in his preparation, which likely helped him elude capture for so long.  Rogge treated his bank robberies like a job.  He explains that it was a job he had to do well because of the grave consequences of a mistake.

One example of what Rogge looked for in a target bank was an all-female staff.  His theory was that women were less inclined to resist or play the hero.  Another key aspect was a good getaway - whether by stolen car, plane, or boat.

Rogge also had a rule that he did not want to commit a robbery when he was desperate for money because desperation would lead to rushing and mistakes.  His careful planning seems to have worked most of the time. 

It appears Rogge was extremely successful.  His robberies netted tens of thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars each.  Rogge and his wife traveled the country and large parts of the world for many years while he was on the FBI's top ten most wanted list and regularly featured on the television show "America's Most Wanted."  (It's unclear exactly how long he was on the run because there is not much sense of time provided.) 

The book sometimes skips over interesting parts of Rogge's story.  For example, two attempted prison escapes were disposed of in two sentences.  (Although a later successful escape is detailed and is almost unbelievable in its ease.)

This book is a good look into the mind of a criminal.  Rogge was not a violent criminal, but he had no regard for the law or the people and businesses he victimized. 

There is a distinct tone of admiration and pride that comes through from both author and subject.  Rogge seems to have no regard for the people whose IDs he stole or the bank tellers he frightened. Not to mention the banks and car dealerships he robbed of hundreds of thousands of dollars.   He almost seems to delight in his acts.  Rogge shows no remorse.  He even expresses confusion over why law enforcement authorities were so interested in him when he had never hurt anyone.

The book could have been better edited for ease of reading.  It comes across a little amateurish.  At times that is annoying and other times it is endearing.  

Overall, a worthwhile read.  Click below to check it out:

If you're a writer, check out my writer's guide of The Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.  If you have a book you would like me to review, please contact me.

I am going to be speaking on a "Law and Disorder" panel at the upcoming Great American Pitchfest.  The panel, like most of the other classes, is completely free.

The Pitchfest is aimed at screenwriters, but the Law and Disorder panel is applicable to anyone who writes in the genres of crime, mystery, thriller, or legal drama.  I understand that a veteran detective and an ex-con will be on the panel with me, so it should be a lively and well-rounded discussion. 

The pitchfest is an all-weekend event.  For more information on this excellent resource and opportunity for screenwriters, check out the event site.

Details
The Law and Disorder panel will be:
Saturday, June 1, 2013
9:00-10:30 a.m.
Marriott Burbank Hotel and Convention Center
2500 N. Hollywood Way
Burbank, CA 91505

You can RSVP for this free class here.

If you will be in the Los Angeles area, come watch the panel and learn a little something.  If you come, be sure to say hello!

Sign up for my free eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made By Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.

OJ Simpson has claimed that his attorney for his Las Vegas robbery trial was ineffective. He has asserted two bases for his claim: 1) conflict of interest, and 2) failure to tell him about a plea offer.  This raises the question of what a criminal defendant must show for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

What Is Ineffective Assistance of Counsel?

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to the effective assistance of counsel. 

That doesn't mean a defendant has the right to a perfect attorney or even a really good attorney.  It simply means a defendant has the right to an attorney who doesn't mess up in a way that is considered outside the professional norm.  Even then, the mess-up has to be so bad that it changes the outcome of the case.

Unlike a trial where the prosecution has the burden of proof to show a defendant is guilty, here it is the defendant's burden to prove that his attorney was ineffective. This is usually done through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The defendant has to prove two things.

First, he must prove that his attorney acted outside the bounds of what is acceptable for a criminal defense attorney. This must be something more than a disagreement about tactics. It has to be something big. There are cases where even a drunk or sleeping attorney has not been held constitutionally ineffective.

Second, the defendant must prove that the attorney's mistake changed the outcome of the case. "If it wasn't for the mistake, I would have been acquitted." This is called prejudice.

Was OJ Denied the Right to the Effective Assistance of Counsel?

In OJ Simpson's case, he claims his attorney had a conflict of interest because he advised OJ that taking his memorabilia back was legal. A conflict of interest usually exists when an attorney has divided loyalties. Even if OJ's claim is true, it is unclear how that would have divided the attorney's loyalties. It is also unclear how that would have changed the outcome of the case. OJ would have to show his attorney's conflict caused him to be convicted when he would not have otherwise.

OJ's other claim is that his attorney did not tell him about a plea offer. a criminal defense attorney has a duty to communicate any plea offers to his client. The problem with this claim is that OJ would have to prove that he would have accepted the plea offer if he had known about it. Without that showing, there is no prejudice. No harm, no foul.  This is highly unlikely here. I suspect there is nothing that would have gotten OJ to plead guilty in this case.

It is generally very difficult for a criminal defendant to show that her attorney has been constitutionally ineffective. It does not appear that OJ will be able to make that showing.

Sign up for my free eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.

I downloaded this book for free on Kindle, and was pleasantly surprised.  (As of this writing, it's still available for free on Kindle - click the picture or link below:)

This mystery-thriller was fast-paced, if predictible.  Although I could see many of the plot twists coming, there were a lot of turns that kept the story moving at a good pace and kept me interested. 

The main protagonist is a Twin Cities cop named Mac McRyan.  (Even after reading the book, I'm not sure where the Twin Cities are, other than somewhere in the midwest bordering multiple states.)  McRyan is pretty much perfect.  Young, rugged, Hollywood good-looking, and law-school smart.  His perfection is his downfall as a protagonist.  It's hard to relate to him.  He never gives up on a case, which is what makes him such a great detective, of course.

The case begins when a famous and well-off lawyer's daughter is kidnapped in broad daylight.  From the start, the kidnapping looks like a professional job, with little evidence left behind.  When the Police Chief's daughter is also kidnapped, McRyan and "the boys" know they are dealing with a personal vendetta. 

The FBI is called in to run the investigation, but the local cops stay on the case.  Each possible clue turns into a dead end or an intentional red herring.  The kidnappers have planned well and considered every scenario.  They bury the kidnapped girls in a grave with limited air, setting a short deadline for McRyan to solve the crime and save the girls.  

Despite their meticulous planning, it appears the kidnappers have underestimated McRyan, who sees potential connections and evidence where others do not.  Will McRyan get to the girls before they die?  Will he catch the kidnappers before they escape?

The story follows both the kidnappers and the cops set on catching them.  The book was written well enough to keep those two storylines separate yet intertwined.

There are hints throughout the book of McRyan's personal and professional past, which worked to get me interested in reading the prior books in the series - "First Case" and "The St. Paul Conspiracy" (or get all three in the box set for a low price - see below). 

I would recommend this book as a decent, well-paced mytery.  It was a quick and easy read for fans of crime and mystery books.

Writers and filmmakers, sign up for my free eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.

"Gangster Squad," starring Sean Penn, Josh Brolin, Ryan Gosling, and Emma Stone, is about a group of Los Angeles police officers who put away their badges (and the constraints of pesky things like the law and the constitution) in an effort to rid L.A. of gangster Mickey Cohen.  The result is a fun, old-fashioned, shoot-em-up gangster movie.  The twist is that the outrageous conduct of these cops is based on true events.

The police officers of the gangster squad engage in multitudes of crimes, including murder, trespassing, jail-breaking, and illegal wiretapping.  This is all done because tried and true legal methods of bringing Mickey Cohen to justice have proven fruitless - he pays off most of the L.A.P.D., and any witnesses are too afraid to testify against him.  He basically owns the town.

The shiny, new-looking Los Angeles of the 1940s was a great setting for the film, and a nice contrast from so many ganster films set in New York.  The movie evokes comparisons to "L.A. Confidential," but "Gangster Squad" does not take itself that seriously.

I'm always skeptical when a movie claims to be "based on true events."  To find out how true the movie is, you can read the book the movie was based on - "Gangster Squad:  Covert Cops, the Mob, and the Battle for Los Angeles."  I haven't read it yet, but I enjoyed the movie so much, and I was intrigued by the story, that I have put the book on my short list.

Here's how Amazon describes the book:

GANGSTER SQUAD chronicles the true story of the secretive police unit that waged an anything-goes war to drive Mickey Cohen and other hoodlums from Los Angeles after WWII. In 1946, the LAPD launched the Gangster Squad with eight men who met covertly on street corners and slept with Tommy guns under their beds. But for two cops, all that mattered was nailing the strutting gangster Mickey Cohen. Sgt. Jack O’Mara was a square-jawed church usher, Sgt. Jerry Wooters a cynical maverick. About all they had in common was their obsession. So O’Mara set a trap to prove Mickey was a killer. And Wooters formed an alliance with Mickey’s budding rival, Jack “The Enforcer” Whalen. Two cops -- two hoodlums.  Their fates collided in the closing days of the 1950s, when late one night “The Enforcer” confronted Mickey and his crew. The aftermath would shake both LA’s mob and police department, and signal the end of a defining era in the city’s history.

Click below to check out the books and movies:

Also, sign up to get a free eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.

"Death in the City of Light" is a true crime book by David King about a serial killer who murdered dozens of people in Nazi-occupied Paris, France during World War II. 

The crimes committed by the accused serial killer and physician, Dr. Marcel Petiot, were truly horrible.  In addition to being gruesome, his crimes targeted some of the most vulnerable people during World War II - those who wanted to escape the Gestapo. 

Dr. Petiot was seen by those who knew him alternately as a charming humanitarian or a creep.  Dr. Petiot made a reputation for himself by providing free services to the poor.  He was also known to service drug users and was investigated more than once for improperly proscribing medication to addicts.

Petiot effectively used the Nazi occupation of Paris and the French Resistance movement to recruit new victims, prevent too many questions from being asked, and cover his crimes.  Once he is discovered and captured, the central question of his trial becomes whether his murders were committed for the Gestapo, the Resistance, or himself.

The book loses a lot of steam when the trial starts about halfway through.  Normally I'm fascinated by how a foreign country's criminal justice system and trial process compares to the United States, but this one got too bogged down in details.  Also, the author made a point of focusing on the defendant's "witty" remarks in court and the trial audience's delight in him, which was hard to take after learning of all the disgusting things he had done. 

More interesting were some of the procedures used in the French criminal court which were very different from a U.S. criminal trial.  For example, the first part of the trial was basically dedicated to an interrogation of the defendant by the trial judge and lawyers.  By contrast, in the U.S., we have the Fifth Amendment, which protects criminal defendants from ever having to speak in a criminal trial and even prevents the lawyers from commenting on his failure to testify.

Also, several of the victims in the French criminal trial were represented by civil attorneys who actively participated in the trial.  They questioned witnesses and presented evidence.  In the U.S. court system, criminal and civil trials are completely separate.

One of the things I was most struck by was the apparent lack of order in questioning and argument during the French trial.  The defendant and lawyers would speak up, question witnesses, and make arguments seemingly without structure or order.  If this is really the way of a French criminal trial, it is hard to imagine how anything could get accomplished with such a system.  Especially with so many lawyers involved and given lawyers' love of hearing themselves talk!

As far as foreign true crime serial killer books go, I preferred "The Monster of Florence" by Douglas Preston.

Check out my review of "The Monster of Florence" here.

Overall, however, the story underlying "Death in the City of Light" is simply too disturbing and intriguing to ignore. 

(Click the images or links above to check out the books for yourself.)

Also, get your free ebook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.

The true crime book, "Helter Skelter," was written by Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor who charged and convicted Charles Manson and four of his followers for the murders of Sharon Tate and her friends, as well as Leno and Rosemary LaBianca.  These crimes happened on two consecutive nights and were known as the Tate-LaBianca murders.

For someone born after the Manson murders occurred, and living in a time where it seems nothing is shocking anymore, reading about the sheer depravity and viciousness of these crimes is still horrifying.  The youth and susceptibility of the murderers, Manson's followers, was chilling.  Their willingness to believe in and follow Manson, someone we think of today as so obviously mad, was disturbing.  There were many times throughout the book where I shook my head and said, "These people were crazy!"

This is also a story that continues to raise its head from time to time, even more than 40 years later. Because their death sentences were reduced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, every couple years, one of the Manson Family comes up for parole, even Charles Manson himself is eligible.

Bruce Davis was recently recommended for parole by the California Parole Board. Davis was not one of the murderers at the Tate-Labianca crime scenes, but he did participate in related murders during the same timeframe. The final decision of parole rests with the California governor. 

The trial of Charles Manson and three of his followers for the Tate-LaBianca murders was filled with unusual occurrences and mysteries. 

One of the defense attorneys went missing in the middle of trial, and his body was later found wedged between two boulders in a place he often camped.  Although never proven, it was rumored that the Manson Family killed him for disobeying Manson when it came to trial strategy.

Several prosecution witnesses were threatened, and at least two had family members attempt to kill them.

Manson charged the judge at one point in the proceedings, prompting the judge to begin carrying a gun under his robe.  The three female defendants on trial with Manson often mimicked him and moved and spoke in unison. 

The defense rested without calling any witnesses, to which the three female defendants objected, stating they wanted to testify and absolve Manson of any participation in planning the murders.

Manson carved an "X" on his forehead, and the next day, his three co-defendants had done the same.

These acts by Manson's three co-defendants served to support the prosecution's theory that Manson was the puppeteer behind all their crimes.  Although he did not wield the deadly knives that took the lives of seven innocent people, Manson was responsible as the one who planned and ordered the killings.

There was at least one notable difference between the 1970-1971 trial described in Helter Skelter and the typical murder trial today.  Author Bugliosi describes the discovery of a knife on a Manson Family member in the courtroom.  Shortly afterward, metal detectors were erected outside the courtroom, through which anyone wanting to enter had to pass.  Of course, today I don't know if there's a courthouse left in the country without permanent metal detectors at the front doors.  There certainly are not any in L.A.  Indeed, the Criminal Courts Building in downtown Los Angeles has extra metal detectors and security through which any spectator has to pass on the ninth floor - where particularly notable or dangerous cases are tried.

The title of the book, Helter Skelter, was taken from the motive for the murders.  Manson believed that a race war was imminent, and he told his followers that Blacks would win that war.  However, they would not know how to lead, and would turn to him to lead the post-war world.  (Manson and his Family would hide out during the war in a secret city beneath Death Valley.) 

Manson believed The Beatles "White Album," which had recently been released in 1968, contained hidden messages telling people to begin the race war.  The White Album contains a song titled "Helter Skelter." 

When the war did not begin, Manson became impatient and told his followers they would have to show Black people how to do it.  The prosecution's theory was that the Tate-LaBiance murders were intended to look like Black people had committed the crimes, which would start the race war.

The author/prosecutor Bugliosi exposes many fumbles by LAPD, particularly by the old guard within LAPD who were not open to new methods of police investigation and detection.  The author's tone throughout the book is a little too self-important for my taste, but not enough to ruin the book.

The bottom line is that the Manson murders are to this day known as some of the most horrific and shocking in history, and with good reason.  I highly recommend this book to any lover of true crime.  (Click below to get your own copy.)

Also check out the documentary "Manson," that was released shortly after the book, Helter Skelter, and has interviews with author Bugliosi, several Manson Family members, as well as Charles Manson himself.

Be sure to get your free eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.