Unreasonable Doubts

One of America's leading appeal lawyers, Alan Dershowitz was the man chosen to prepare the appeal should O.J. Simpson have been convicted. Now Professor Dershowitz uses this case to examine the larger issues and to identify the social forces - media, money, gender, and race - that shape the criminal-justice system in America today. How could one of the longest trials in the history of America's judicial system produce a verdict after only hours of jury deliberation? Was this really a case of circumstantial evidence?

Jaded New York City Public Defender Liana Cohen would give anything to have one client in whom she can believe. Dozens of hardened criminals and repeat offenders have chipped away at her faith in both herself and the system. Her boyfriend Jakob’s high-powered law firm colleagues see her do-gooder job as a joke, which only adds to the increasing strain in their relationship. Enter imprisoned felon Danny Shea, whose unforgivable crime would raise a moral conflict in an attorney at the height of her idealism—and that hasn't been Liana in quite a while. But Danny's astonishing blend of good looks, intelligence, and vulnerability intrigues Liana. Could he be the client she’s been longing for—the wrongly accused in need of a second chance? Is he innocent? As their attorney-client relationship transforms into something less than arm’s length, Liana is forced to confront fundamental questions of truth, faith, and love—and to decide who she wants to be.

A man gets sixteen years for smuggling drugs into Italy. Guerrieri takes on the appeal, discovers the accused was a neo-Fascist thug, and ends up in bed with his beautiful half-Japanese wife...the gnawing boredom of routine.

Reasonable Doubts is the memoir of a religious skeptic's endeavor to rediscover her source of faith, from the ground up, as she regained the ability to read following her accident. On the way she encounters various religious philosophers and thinkers, such as Saadya, Maimonides, Henry Bergson, Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, Rudolph Otto, and Abraham Joshua Heschel, who provide her with clues to a spiritual resolution. Berman utilizes scenes from the Book of Job as well as snapshots from her own life to explicate the various philosophical theories that make up the stops along her journey. Jewish literature regarding faith crises is sparse, leaving skeptics and sufferers alike secluded, precisely when they need to be embraced. Reasonable Doubts seeks to reassure those undergoing faith crises that they are not alone. Reasonable Doubts also provides philosophical suggestions towards solutions to some basic religious and spiritual quandaries. Ultimate conclusions to most of these issues, however, lie within the soul of reader. -- Amazon.com.

'The good, bad and downright rotten parts of Australia's criminal justice system are put on trial by Dr Xanthé Mallett. With her clear-eyed logic and objectivity, this compelling book identifies reasonable doubts which must keep prosecutors and defence lawyers awake at night.' Hedley Thomas, host of the Teacher's Pet podcast We all put our faith in the criminal justice system. We trust the professionals: the police, the lawyers, the judges, the expert witnesses. But what happens when the process lets us down and the wrong person ends up in jail? Henry Keogh spent almost twenty years locked away for a murder that never even happened. Khalid Baker was imprisoned for the death of a man his best friend has openly admitted to causing. And the exposure of 'Lawyer X' Nicola Gobbo's double-dealing could lead to some of Australia's most notorious convictions being overturned. Forensic scientist Xanthé Mallett is used to dealing with the darker side of humanity. Now she's turning her skills and insight to miscarriages of justice and cases of Australians who have been wrongfully convicted. Exposing false confessions, polices biases, misplaced evidence and dodgy science, Reasonable Doubt is an expert's account of the murky underbelly of our justice system - and the way it affects us all.

To be convicted of a crime in the United States, a person must be proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But what is reasonable doubt? Even sophisticated legal experts find this fundamental doctrine difficult to explain. In this accessible book, James Q. Whitman digs deep into the history of the law and discovers that we have lost sight of the original purpose of “reasonable doubt.” It was not originally a legal rule at all, he shows, but a theological one. The rule as we understand it today is intended to protect the accused. But Whitman traces its history back through centuries of Christian theology and common-law history to reveal that the original concern was to protect the souls of jurors. In Christian tradition, a person who experienced doubt yet convicted an innocent defendant was guilty of a mortal sin. Jurors fearful for their own souls were reassured that they were safe, as long as their doubts were not “reasonable.” Today, the old rule of reasonable doubt survives, but it has been turned to different purposes. The result is confusion for jurors, and a serious moral challenge for our system of justice.

In November 1983, David Hendricks's wife and three children were found butchered in their Bloomington, Illinois, home while Hendricks was away on business. Hendricks soon became the prime suspect in the murders of his family. Reissue.

I hate him… I hate that I fell in love with him, I hate that he didn’t love me back, and I hate the fact that I just made a life-altering decision just so I could get the hell away from him. He’d always said that he was unchangeable, heartless, and cold… I really should’ve believed him…