Reviews

“traces the development of the criminal trial . . . with verve, intelligence, humour and clarity . . . An impressive performance” – The Times (London)

 

“philosophical and witty” – The Boston Globe

 

“sinewy and knowledgable . . . [a] serious and worthwhile contribution to legal literature” – The London Review of Books

 

“compelling” – The Times Literary Supplement

 

“truly remarkable . . . brilliant” – The Buffalo News

 

“amusing, colourful and anecdotal . . . a real achievement” – The Guardian

 

“a sweeping triumph, a delight for anyone interested in law and justice” – Baltimore Sun

 

“an imaginative cornucopia of legal history, displayed by a deft and engaging writer” – The Washington Lawyer

 

“a colorful work of popular history . . . pleasurable and instructive” – Wall Street Journal

 

“well documented and highly readable . . . demonstrate[s] both analytical skill and an extraordinary depth of understanding” – New York Law Journal

 

“you don’t have to agree with Kadri’s political views to find his history of the trial engaging stuff” - Daily Telegraph

 

“Possibly the most engaging book of legal history ever written” - Good Book Guide

 

“a snappy, engaging prose style . . . a superb lay introduction to legal proceedings” – Charleston Post and Courier

 

“Kadri has a story-teller’s eye for lively detail” – Newsweek

 

“a timely book. Kadri makes clear how long it has taken to arrive at this supposedly high point in judicial history and consequently fires a warning shot at those who seek to erode hard-won traditions” - The Observer (London)

 

“a lively style that keeps the subject entertaining even when it is grim” - San Antonio Express-News

 

“Kadri’s wide historical lens allows him to show how the flaws of the past stubbornly crop up in the present” - The Washington Post

 

“a comprehensive and thought-provoking historical assessment of the foundation of our nation’s system of criminal justice” - The News & Observer (Raleigh)

 

Last, but by no means least interesting, the Orlando Sentinel (“hopelessly naïve . . . flies in the face of our most proven and revered Anglo-Saxon legal traditions . . . He sees the bizarre, the depraved, and the mystical [but] summarily ignores the depth, nobility, reason and honor in the Western jury system”).