Do You Have A Verdict?

HANK PHILLIPPI RYAN: When I was a little girl, I loved to watch Perry Mason with my stepfather, who was a brilliant lawyer. But there was one condition: my sister and I could not talk during Perry. We could not say a word. We could not ask a question, or comment. Complete silence. During the commercials we could ask what immaterial meant, or irrelevant, but when Perry came back on, not a peep.

I loved The Perry Mason show, and loved trying to figure out who the bad guy was, and began to learn, I think even then, the rhythm of a legal thriller. That there had to be good guys and bad guys,  that after the bad guy was caught--he was innocent until proven guilty. 

And then it was the lawyer's turn. And if it was Perry for the defense (with Della Street's wise help), except for that one time, the so-called criminal would be set free. Because that was justice, and Perry's super skills as a lawyer. And oh, yeah, the REAL criminal would break down on the stand under Perry's withering questioning, and the REAL  bad guy would be brought to justice. 

And, just saying,  Erle Stanley Gardner's Perry Mason books so far have sold THREE HUNDRED MILLION  copies.

These days legal thrillers are a little different, it’s not quite as clear who is bad and good. In fact, in THE MURDER LIST, that’s my whole theme: if the defense thinks they’re the good guys, and the prosecution thinks they're  the good guys, how can that be?

 (And I’m sure you’ll be hearing more about THE MURDER LIST--pub date next Tuesday!-- around these parts soon.)

Ever since then, legal thrillers, or at least books and movies that involve the law, have been my very favorite. To Kill A Mockingbird of course, and Compulsion, 12 Angry Men, Anatomy of a Murder. Witness for the Prosecution. The Verdict. Presumed Innocent, of course. And the fabulous Tracy and Hepburn movie Adam’s Rib— which is even more fabulous today. 

And now, The Lincoln Lawyer, and Miracle Creek, even the crazy high concept Thirteen. And anything David Ellis writes.  So many more! But I will leave those to you to name.

And it’s difficult to define legal thriller, anyway. One fabulous early reader of THE MURDER LIST said "If John Grisham and Lisa Scottoline had a book baby, this would be it!" 

I love that more than anything.

Okay, Reds and readers… Do you read legal thrillers? What does that mean to you?  What have been your favorites in years past, and what new ones on the horizon?

HALLIE EPHRON: The first legal thriller that comes to mind is DEFENDING JACOB, Bill Landay's tour de force. It blew me away. In it, criminal prosecutor Andy Barber tries to "lawyer away" mounting evidence that his son Jacob killed a classmate. Barber knows that violence runs in his family, but he can’t believe that his son could kill. Wracked with guilt, Jacob’s mother Laurie revisits incidents from Jacob's childhood that she can no longer rationalize. Through the clever use of courtroom transcripts, Landay withholds what Andy is unwilling to face and what Laurie is willing to do about it. 

Did I say it's brilliant? I was gobsmacked?? PS I also LOVED Lincoln Lawyer, And anything by Scott Turow. And I cannot wait to read THE MURDER LIST!

JENN MCKINLAY: Richard North Patterson's SILENT WITNESS has stayed with me forever. Not sure if it's considered a legal thriller other than the fact that the protagonist is an attorney who goes back to his small hometown to defend his friend against accusations of murder. The twists and turns and unexpected reveals were fantastic! I love that your next book is solidly set in the legal thriller world. Can't wait to read The Murder List!

LUCY BURDETTE: Yes I enjoy legal thrillers too. Have read many of those mentioned and looking forward to Hank's! 

I think my first foray into the genre was THE FIRM by John Grisham, and I read quite a few of his after that. I would never want to be a lawyer, but love the insider look into how a barrister thinks...

DEBORAH CROMBIE: I remember watching Perry Mason! I think I liked it more than my folks, though.  I've mentioned before that I loved a British book called The Verdict by Nick Stone--definitely a legal thriller. 

I loved The Lincoln Lawyer. I haven't read Defending Jacob, it's on my list. But not before THE MURDER LIST!

JULIA SPENCER-FLEMING: What, no love for LA LAW? I was dating Ross when that show was popular, and he and all the rest of the law students loved it - probably because the lawyers spent more time on their sexy private lives than with their noses buried in casebooks. 

If I can step slightly away from the "thriller" component, many of Jodi Picoult's novels have both a mystery and a strong legal setting at the heart. Not murder mysteries, it's true, but the plots are driven by deeply personal questions, and the revelations and shocking twists often come out in the courtroom. In particular, PERFECT MATCH, MY SISTER'S KEEPER and NINETEEN MINUTES, which also have lawyer-protagonists. 

PS: I've already read THE MURDER LIST and won't give anything away, except to say readers are in for a wicked treat.

HANK PHILLIPPI RYAN:  Awww.... thank you, all of you. You all are so sweet--you know how excited I am for THE MURDER LIST, and kinda going crazy. But how about you, readers?  Tell us the  legal thrillers you love, and whether you still read them, and hey--did you watch Perry Mason?

AND NOW:

REDS HOT NEWS!

AND the winner of LAYOVER by David Bell is Jess Montgomery! EMail Hank at h ryan at whdh dot com

HALLIE's SWEEPS: Register between now and 8/22 to win a copy of all of her suspense novels--from CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR to NEVER TELL A LIE. This sweeps is open to the US only, 18 years of age or older. https://a.pgtb.me/7hKMJ1

JENN"S GIVEAWAY: My publisher is offering 15 copies of WORD TO THE WISE on GoodReads: 
Go to: http://www.goodreads.com/giveaway/show/295978-word-to-the-wise

DEBS' E-SALE: My publisher is offering TO DWELL IN DARKNESS, Kincaid/James #16 all the month of August for $1.99 on Kindle! https://www.amazon.com/Dwell-Darkness-Novel-Duncan-Kincaid-ebook/dp/B00DB3A4B8?fbclid=IwAR2cgFjG0h1HV1SXOy5OBV5KiTCEGu8s_zZOPACczg7BKFm_fnp-xNo8aHw

JULIA'S EBOOK SALE: The first book in the Clare Fergusson/ Russ Van Alstyne series is on sale for $2.99 in all ebook formats! Kindle: (link: https://amzn.to/2LXuDXk) amzn.to/2LXuDXk iBooks: (link: https://apple.co/2GGQHkB) apple.co/2GGQHkB Nook: (link: http://bit.ly/2YkAext) bit.ly/2YkAext 
Kobo: (link: http://bit.ly/32ZVmrD) bit.ly/32ZVmrD


HANK'S FREE SNEAK PEEK AND AUDIO BOOK:  My publisher is offering you a huge portion of THE MURDER LIST as a free download right here:  http://bit.ly/MurderListPrvw
AND here's a free snippet of the fab Angela Dawe reading the audio book! https://read.macmillan.com/lp/the-murder-list-audiobook/

HANK's LAUNCH PARTY!  For The Murder List
Tuesday, August 20 at 7 pm at  Brookline Booksmith
Wednesday Aug 21  7 pm RJ Julia . Madison CT (With editor Kristin Sevick)
Thursday Aug 22 7 pm An Unlikely Story, Plainville MA
Saturday  Aug 23  2pm . Poisoned Pen Bookstore Scottsdale AZ (ticketed event with true crime writer Billy Jensen)
MORE HERE : http://hankphillippiryan.com/events.php

What Hank's Writing: What is THE MURDER LIST?

HANK PHILLIPPI RYAN: THE MURDER LIST is not a legal thriller, someone said to me. It's domestic suspense, focused on a wife and husband, and who might be the good guy and who might be the bad.  

Someone else said: It's not domestic suspense, it's totally a legal thriller. It's about murder, and trials, and finding a dangerous killer. Or  two.  

I say: it's both.  It's THE MURDER LIST (coming August 20),  and I am superly excited about it.

It has a courtroom battle--oh yes. And a jury. And some murders, and legal wrangling. But also a husband and wife...situation. As the amazing Erica Ferencik said : "it's husband and wife, ego and id, cat and mouse." 

No review couldn't make me happier than one Goodreads early reader who said--"All right! If John Grisham and Lisa Scottoline had a book baby, that would be THE MURDER LIST!" 

I might have a t-shirt made out of that.  But what is a legal thriller?

Witness for the Prosecution. A Few Good Men. Adam's Rib. To Kill a Mockingbird, of course. And the amazing Inherit the Wind, (Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow) remember? And oh--Compulsion (Orson Welles as Clarence Darrow), maybe my favorite trial movie ever. 

The reason I love these movies is that they not just about the crime, but they're about personal stories, right?  Relationships. Why people make the decisions they do.

 And certainly they're about justice. And sometimes, when we wonder--why do we write crime fiction? When there's already enough crime in the world? I once read  a mystery where someone says--I don't write about crime. I write about justice.

And that's what I do, too. Write about why people do what they do, and then--how do we get to to the truth about it? And be sure--can we ever be sure?--that justice is served? Claus Von Bulow died last week, and I had covered his retrial in 1985. 

(Recognize anyone besides Von Bulow in this photo from the NY Times that was in his obituary?)  


Von Bulow was acquitted--but did someone try to kill his wife Sunny? His death, and hers years earlier, means we will never know.  

We'll never know! That's what informed TRUST ME--that sometimes we think we know, but we don't, can't possibly, for sure. And I explore similar themes in THE MURDER LIST.  Murder, and the rules of law. Justice, and how we get there--if we do. 

And, as the cover asks: What happens when the battle for justice becomes the battle for survival?

Rachel. Jack. Martha. Who is next on THE MURDER LIST?

Here is Rachel North, chief of staff to Senator Tom Rafferty. And they both are having a bad day in court. 

                             Rachel North

 A wall of bodies and cameras and microphones presses toward us and a din of insistent voices engulfs us, questions echoing on the white brick walls, doubling the sound, tripling the sound. We almost can’t get out of the elevator. It crosses my mind to push the close door button, escape, and sneak back into the courtroom some other way.

“Let’s do this,” I say. I narrow my eyes, lift my chin and power ahead, carving a path for the Senator, unstoppably determined, as if I’m his personal fullback. What these people are asking, what they’re demanding, what they’re thinking, is outrageous. Insensitive. Demeaning. Disrespectful. And, I hate myself for thinking, exactly what I’d like to know myself.

“Is your wife a murderer, Senator?” “Why did she do it?” “Why would Nina kill her?” “Were you having an affair?” “Are you going to resign?”

“No comment no comment the senator has no comment,” I repeat. I’m a robot, a talking robot, but I can feel Tom Rafferty, silent and seething, behind me. We make it to the tall wooden courtroom doors of room 226. I pull one of the metal door handles. Nothing. Try the other one. Nothing. And again. Nothing.  Locked.

“No comment no comment no comment.” I say as I keep trying, rattling the curved handles with one hand, knocking like crazy with the other. Tom and I are trapped here, sandwiched between the closed doors and the insistent reporters. Not a good battle strategy.

I almost fall over when one of the doors opens right onto me, and I lurch a step backward, almost tripping on the Senator who’s close behind me. A scowling court officer, a head taller than I am and shoulders twice as broad, appears in the doorway, clearly ready to order us away. He stops mid-command. Closes his mouth. Regroups.

“Get in here,” he mutters, waving us through.

I go first, ducking my head, then Tom. I feel the crowd behind us surging, as a group, trying to follow.

“Get back!” the officer instructs. His bulk blocks the still-open door, arms crossed over his chest. “Court stays closed until l:30. Rules are rules.”

“Come on, Hector,” someone whines from the back of the hallway. “If they can go in, we can go in.”

“He’s the President of the Senate,” the court officer hisses.

“Not for long!” someone calls out.

HANK:  So, this is the time of crossing fingers!  So, Reds and readers, do you love legal thrillers?  Which ones?  Tell us your faves--and an advance review copy of THE MURDER LIST to one lucky commenter!

JAN BROGAN: Please welcome MARGARET MCLEAN today. An attorney, former prosecutor, and adjunct law professor at Boston College's Carroll School Management, she is the author of the legal thrillers  Under Fire and Under Oath (Forge/MacMillan).   She has co-written a dramatic courtroom play, based on Under Oath, which is in development with the Playwrights and Directors Unit at the Actor's Studio in New York City. 

McLean is the host of the popular radio show, "It's A Crime" on NBC News Radio KCAA in the Los Angeles area where she dishes on  law and crime. Check it out on itsacrimeradio.com.  She also co-hosts another radio show," The Business of Life" with Coach Ron Tunick in the Los Angeles area - and as if that doesn't keep her busy enough, she is also the  president of the New England Chapter of Mystery Writers of America.

MARGARET MCLEAN: Last weekend I watched the 1960 movie, Inherit the Wind, starring Dick York, Spencer Tracy, Fredric March, and Gene Kelly.  Why did I hush my friend when he asked if I wanted a piece of chocolate cake?  That’s not normal for me, but I didn’t care about the cake.  I cared about the characters and what was at stake.  After the movie I read the play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, and wished I could simply stuff all that drama into a genie’s bottle and uncork it as needed for my books.  Writing is never that easy.  In the alternative, I’m going to read classic plays this summer and stuff all that good writing into a journal.  I can do this.  It only takes a day or two to read a play, and I’ve kicked off the summer with a good one. 

            Inherit the Wind is based on the 1925 Scopes “monkey” trial in Tennessee where the defendant is tried for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution in a public school.  It was a courtroom battle between the creationists and the evolutionists; Clarence Darrow verses Williams Jennings Byran.   The play is a reflection of the times for it was first performed in 1955 during the anti-intellectual red scare of the McCarthy era.  I enjoyed the history, but a good play should withstand the test of time.

            Inherit the Wind opens with a crisis or turning point for the town and the characters involved.  The trial is about to begin. There is something big at stake and the audience knows it from the beginning.  It drew me in.  Throughout the play, the trial consumes everyone.  The set includes large windows where the town square can be seen from inside the courtroom, so the town is a character too.   The lawyers create high drama as they battle each other in the sweltering, packed courtroom.  The townspeople know each other, and so do the lawyers—all are connected.  The playwrights create rising conflict between characters who share a long history and care about each other.  They don’t make characters argue for the sake of creating conflict.  When characters care for each other and fight, it increases the stakes.   This rising conflict reveals how each character grows and changes through all three acts.

Crisp dialogue is used to drive the plot and define the characters and setting.  A playwright doesn’t have the luxury of explaining in prose what a character is thinking at any given time.  There are neither wasted words nor filler in this play.  The stage forces the author to show and not tell.  In describing the lawyer who is coming to prosecute the big case, Meeker says: “I seen him once.  At a Chautauqua meeting in Chattanooga.  The tent-poles shook!  Who’s gonna be your lawyer, son?”  I loved those lines.  The audience knows this guy is going to be a loud, boisterous orator, a force to contend with.

As I embark on this summer of plays, I’ll be entertained by the masters and will hopefully come away with some tips on how to write dialogue, conflict, and create characters that an audience will care about.  My daughter Sarah just gave me the complete works of William Shakespeare for my birthday.   I’m thrilled.  Join me and we’ll pick the next play. 

    

Five Mistakes

HANK PHILLIPPI RYAN: I'm married to a lawyer. For a mystery writer, this is a very very good thing. Having "in-house counsel" is about as good as it gets--especially for questions like: If I stall my guy in the police department interrogation, how long before the defense attorney goes crazy? Can a police officer lie to a suspect? What do judges really say at sidebar? What's the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter? Can I name a real place in a fictional story?

And I don't even have to pay $350 an hour to get the answers! (I do the cooking, and media consulting, you know, so Jonathan gets benefits, too.)

Anyway! If you don't have in-house counsel, now at least you have in-Jungle counsel. Today the Reds welcome our dear pal Leslie Budewitz, who has generously and brilliantly handled questions for her sisters in crime for years now--pro bono! And we are very pro Leslie.

(And whoo hoo--check the end of the blog for some fantastic news!)

So, drumroll, on this True Crime Tuesday, we'v got a legal expert on retainer! And Leslie has graciously promised to come answer all our questions... and, bonus, we are giving away a copy of her wonderfully valuable book to one lucky commenter!

FIVE MISTAKES MYSTERY AUTHORS MAKE ABOUT THE LAW

By Leslie Budewitz

LESLIE: Thrilled to be here on Jungle Red today–even though my color is Kangarooby. (I’m wiggling my toes–see?)

So many novels, movies, and TV shows touch on the law. Mysteries and crime novels, of course, typically involve an investigation, and often a prosecution. Both law enforcement officers and P.I.s need to know what’s legal and what isn’t. Even amateur sleuth stories often involve the law–the chef/gardener/bookstore owner may get involved because she thinks law enforcement won’t investigate or is focusing on the wrong suspect. Past crimes may surface with present ramifications, some legal, some illegal. Plots and subplots in mainstream and literary novels may involve the law, too.

But legal plots don’t require a crime. In a good storyteller’s hands, civil law can be equally gripping. Think of the possibilities in adoption (A Theory of Relativity, by Jacquelyn Mitchard, or Run, by Ann Patchett), inheritance (Dickens’ Bleak House), even insurance (Double Indemnity, a great book and even greater movie).

And there are plenty of opportunities for mistakes, because the law is complicated and changes constantly. Plus most of us, thank goodness, live happy lives without facing serious legal issues.

Here are a few common mistakes that get under my skin.

**Using the wrong terms, particularly in identifying prosecutors and courts. On Law & Order–and I love the show–the prosecutor is the D.A. Elsewhere, she might be the County Attorney, County Prosecutor, State’s Attorney, even People’s Attorney. Is she in District Court, Circuit Court, Superior Court? It’s easy to check, whether you live where your story is set or not. If you aren’t sure of the terminology, call the court or the prosecutor’s office, or check their website. Read news accounts of recent prosecutions in the newspaper online. No doubt you’ll pick up some good local flavor, too.

**Assuming law enforcement officers need a warrant to make an arrest. Police don’t need a warrant to make an arrest in a public place, or in “exigent circumstances,” such as when an officer witnesses a crime or is pursuing a person suspected of committing a crime. But they still need probable cause.

**Not knowing when a Miranda warning is needed–and when it isn’t. A warning is required only before custodial interrogation. That is, only suspects in custody need to be warned, and even then, only before questioning. Voluntary statements by persons not in custody or not made in response to questioning are admissible. A suspect who’s been warned can waive his rights and agree to questioning. Of course, mistakes are fodder for writers.

**Sentencing a defendant immediately after a criminal conviction. Sentencing is a separate proceeding, usually held after a pre-sentence investigation by a probation officer or other local equivalent (terms vary, remember?). Prosecutors and defense counsel need time to review the report and make recommendations. A few weeks is typical. Sooner is possible–Casey Anthony was sentenced within a week or so after the verdict, but the charges she was convicted of were relatively minor and the investigation may have been expedited because of the circumstances. If you need sentence imposed soon to serve your story, you may have to fudge a little. Just don’t let your fictional judge hear the verdict and impose sentence right away.

**Allowing lawyers–or their clients–to argue with the judge, especially after she’s ruled. Don’t do it–not if you care about your characters or their case. But if you want to piss off your fictional judge, go ahead. Your chances of success are excellent.

Obviously, mistakes happen in real life, which is why lawyers file motions to suppress and appeals. But they also add to the drama and create great opportunities for tension and conflict.

Is it ever okay to make a mistake on purpose, to fool the reader? I don’t think so. Exaggerate a bit for drama, sure, but to deliberately build a story on a faulty premise breaks faith with the reader. At Bouchercon, the international mystery convention, in St. Louis last month, I moderated a panel on forensics in fiction. Former prosecutor Marcia Clark made a point I heartily endorse: The more we tell the truth, the more dramatic it is. We don’t need to lie about the facts to tell a good story–we need to find the story they tell.

I’m happy to answer questions in the comments.

Thanks so much to the Reds for letting me come over and play!

HANK: Yay, Leslie! Thanks so much! So, Reds, fire away...what legal issue can Leslie untangle? And remember, I'll send a copy of her new book to one lucky commenter!

—
Leslie Budewitz is the author of Books, Crooks and Counselors: How to Write Accurately About Criminal Law and Courtroom Procedure (Quill Driver Books, October 2011). She is a practicing lawyer and a mystery writer living in northwest Montana. Read an excerpt and more articles for writers, or send her a question, at http://www.lawandfiction.com/

Leslie’s also got some fun news to share: She’s just accepted a three-book offer from Berkley Prime Crime for The Food Lovers’ Village Mysteries, set in NW Montana, and debuting in 2013!

HANK: WOW!! Fantastic!! SO happy to celebrate with you!