The book transported my imagination where I was right inside a courtroom drama…. Fantastic, thoroughly recommend this book!” “Both educational and entertaining …I thought the author did an excellent job of introducing Americans to the British legal system (which bemuses many of us as much as cricket). I always love good summations, and these were of high calibre… The author demonstrated a mastery of providing meaningful snippets of personal life essentially in textual asides.”“Author John Burton, Q.C. knows of whereof he writes, and his book, as well as being a well plotted, well written and highly enjoyable murder trial novel, is an education in the English criminal justice system, warts and all… There is also a fascinating subplot about the business of English criminal lawyers and the intrigues of the “Chambers” in which Brant practices.”“…..the skills of both the Prosecution, Joanna Glass QC and the Defence are on display. The reader is made to feel part of the Defence team.”David Brant QC is a newly appointed Queen’s Counsel, a “Silk”, a Criminal Barrister struggling against ever-dwindling legal aid funds and a lack of work. His Chambers is also suffering internal and external pressures and his Senior Clerk seems to only serve a select few. Life at the Bar is more challenging than ever before. His personal life is not much better. Having faced an acrimonious divorce after an inadvisable liaison with a female Solicitor, his life has become a mixture of enforced rest and ever increasing consumption of Claret and Rioja Reserva. However, after a night out with his Senior Clerk, he is instructed to defend in a Murder trial, leading one of the instructing solicitor’s firm’s In-House Barristers.The client is a Mr Damien Clarke, a cocaine addict charged with killing a known associate, Usman Hussain, after a night of smoking crack together in Hussain’s flat. The evidence against Damien appears almost overwhelming and as the case progresses towards trial it is strengthened by further forensic scientific evidence.David Brant QC must use all his forensic skill to combat the array of damning evidence against Damien and to pit his wits against a highly competent Prosecutor and a Judge who has a personal dislike for him. The Silk Brief takes us from before David Brant QC is instructed, through his early preparation of the case and conferences with the client in the High Security Belmarsh prison, through to the trial and verdict. It provides the day by day record of a murder trial including the examination and cross-examination of lay and expert witnesses, Counsel’s speeches, the Judges summing up and finally the jury’s deliberations and verdict. Although a work of fiction, the author draws extensively on his knowledge of the Criminal Bar of England and Wales, having practiced as a Criminal Barrister for over thirty years, latterly as Queen’s Counsel, conducting many trials, including murder trials in the Central Criminal Court, known colloquially and fondly as “The Old Bailey”.

    With great detail and care, Garner explains what legalese is, how it can be simplified, and how far legal writers can go in simplifying it. The topics are alphabetically arranged for ease of reference: simply look up any phrase or grammatical category you're interested in, and you're likely to find the final word on the subject. Shortly after the completion of this massively expanded second edition, the late Charles Alan Wright said: The first edition of this book has been praised around the world as both the most reliable guide to legal usage and the most fascinating to read. The second edition outdoes even its predecessor.

    Now two insiders—Joel Pollak, senior editor-at-large for Breitbart News, eye-witness to the election from his unique position as the only conservative reporter aboard the Trump press plane in the last pivotal weeks of the campaign, and professional historian Larry Schweikart, whose "Renegade Deplorables" group of volunteer analysts supplied the Trump campaign with data the mainstream pollsters didn’t have—reveal the true story of how Trump defied the pundits, beat the polls, and won.Pollak and Schweikart reveal: why only two pollsters got the election even close to right (one of them was working with Larry Schweikart); why working class and rural voters flocked to support a New York City billionaire—and the media completely missed the story; how the "Deplorables" were able to read the early voting data to show that Trump was winning Ohio and Pennsylvania weeks before the election—and were still texting reassurances to his campaign on election night; why the release of the Access Hollywood "sex tape" cost Trump Minnesota and New Hampshire, a four-point lead in the popular vote, and a "yuge" landslide in the electoral college; and how the Clinton Team realized they had lost before Team Trump knew they had won.Find out how Trump really beat the polls, the odds, and the machinations of Hillary Clinton and her willing allies in the media and political establishment. How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution is an absolute must-read from a prescient historian and a reporter with the inside scoop—and great stories from the campaign trail.

    president. To Cutler’s shock, she witnesses a rendezvous between the young woman and the president. The next morning the woman’s mutilated body is discovered, and Cutler is suddenly a suspect. How can she prove her innocence against someone who has the power of the presidency at his disposal?Meanwhile, an associate in a law firm in Portland, Oregon, gets assigned the appeal of a serial killer on death row. The convicted felon claims he didn’t kill one of the victims—a young woman who was working for the state governor at the time—the same man who is now president. Could the president be a serial killer?Both story lines collide in this pulse-pounding thriller from genre veteran Margolin.

    Brandeis (“Remarkable”—Anthony Lewis, The New York Review of Books; “Monumental”—Alan M. Dershowitz, The New York Times Book Review), Division and Discord, and Supreme Decisions—Melvin Urofsky’s major new book looks at the role of dissent in the Supreme Court and the meaning of the Constitution through the greatest and longest lasting public-policy debate in the country’s history, among members of the Supreme Court, between the Court and the other branches of government, and between the Court and the people of the United States.   Urofsky writes of the necessity of constitutional dialogue as one of the ways in which we as a people reinvent and reinvigorate our democratic society. In Dissent and the Supreme Court, he explores the great dissents throughout the Court’s 225-year history. He discusses in detail the role the Supreme Court has played in helping to define what the Constitution means, how the Court’s majority opinions have not always been right, and how the dissenters, by positing alternative interpretations, have initiated a critical dialogue about what a particular decision should mean. This dialogue is sometimes resolved quickly; other times it may take decades before the Court adjusts its position. Louis Brandeis’s dissenting opinion about wiretapping became the position of the Court four decades after it was written. The Court took six decades to adopt the dissenting opinion of the first Justice John Harlan in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)—that segregation on the basis of race violated the Constitution—in Brown v. Board of Education (1954).   Urofsky shows that the practice of dissent grew slowly but steadily and that in the nineteenth century dissents became more frequent. In the (in)famous case of Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), Chief Justice Roger Taney’s opinion upheld slavery, declaring that blacks could never be citizens. The justice received intense condemnations from several of his colleagues, but it took a civil war and three constitutional amendments before the dissenting view prevailed and Dred Scott was overturned.   Urofsky looks as well at the many aspects of American constitutional life that were affected by the Earl Warren Court—free speech, race, judicial appointment, and rights of the accused—and shows how few of these decisions were unanimous, and how the dissents in the earlier cases molded the results of later decisions; how with Roe v. Wade—the Dred Scott of the modern era—dissent fashioned subsequent decisions, and how, in the Court, a dialogue that began with the dissents in Roe has shaped every decision since.   Urofsky writes of the rise of conservatism and discusses how the resulting appointments of more conservative jurists to the bench put the last of the Warren liberals—William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall—in increasingly beleaguered positions, and in the minority. He discusses the present age of incivility, in which reasoned dialogue seems less and less possible. Yet within the Marble Palace, the members of the Supreme Court continue to hear arguments, vote, and draft majority opinions, while the minority continues to “respectfully dissent.” The Framers understood that if a constitution doesn’t grow and adapt, it atrophies and dies, and if it does, so does the democratic society it has supported. Dissent—on the Court and off, Urofsky argues—has been a crucial ingredient in keeping the Constitution alive and must continue to be so.(With black-and-white illustrations throughout.)