The best thing about this book, I think, was the clever gimmick of having the story narrated by a man accused of murder who, while giving you plenty of details about the event, manages to keep you guessing all the way through about whether or not he is innocent. Rusty Sabich, a leading prosecuting attorney, starts out investigating the murder of his former lover only to find himself in the role of alleged perpetrator. Rusty's tale abounds with red herrings and surprise twists. It also offers an in-depth look at police and court proceedings that's not always pretty, with surprising suggestions of incompetence and corruption. I know this is fiction and I don't possess enough actual knowledge of the legal system to judge its accuracy; I certainly hope I'm never in a position to find out.

It did take me some time to get into the story; at times the details seemed technical and plodding and I kept waiting for Rusty to just get accused already, knowing when I went in that that was where we were headed. I also think I've read a few too many legal thrillers at this point and am a bit jaded when it comes to the inevitable surprises along the way. Still, the book grew on me as I went along and is certainly deserving of at least four stars. Fans of legal thrillers will not be disappointed.

This is one of the best books that I have read recently. It is a great legal thriller cum murder mystery. No wonder the book finds mention in both the top 100 mystery/crime novel lists published by the Britain-based Crime Writers' Association and by the Mystery Writers of America. Both the lists were published in the nineties and feature some of the finest specimens of crime writing. The lists can be found here - Link

The story is narrated by Rozat K. Sabich aka Rusty, chief deputy prosecutor of Kindle county who is also the protagonist. The story begins with the murder of Carolyn, another prosecuting attorney, with whom Rusty had an affair and never got over his obsession of her. Rusty gets the responsibility of investigating the crime but himself ends up getting accused of the murder and faces trial.

The book features some really great court room scenes, complex characters and portrays so many human emotions and frailties. Illicit passion, betrayal, corruption, dirty politics, jealousy, friendship, paternal feelings, family bonds - everything finds a place in the story. The author has also explained quite a few legal technicalities which makes it easier for the reader to understand some of the complexities of the trial. The mystery is excellent and the very few would be able to guess the identity of the culprit.

Rusty, accustomed to putting criminals behind bars, is now the accused and feels how is it to be on the other side. He talks about his obsession with Carolyn, his childhood, his strained relationship with his wife, his fear of missing out his son's childhood if he is sent to prison. Some of his ramblings is actually a bit boring and do not fit in the story.The author's use of the English language is impressive but somehow I felt at times it was not compatible with the character or the story. e.g. a person, who is a prosecutor not a poet, facing a murder charge is unlikely to use phrases like "doors and windows of my soul are thrown open to a fundamental gratitude". It is my only criticism of the novel.

The book is not just a thriller but Scott Turow's attempt to explore the intricacies of the human mind and he has done a commendable job. I would recommend the book to lovers of legal thrillers, murder mysteries, psychological thrillers if he/she does not mind the ramblings of the protagonist.

I met Scott Turow when he came to visit my college to promote "Presumed Innocent", which I thought was a great book at the time. I haven't read it in almost 20 years (Christ, has it been that long since I was in college?), but I remember some of the details in his writing that made him stand out from all the other best-selling thriller writers out there, most notably John Grisham. Both of them were inevitably compared to each other because of their courtroom settings and knowledge of the legal profession, but Turow was generally trying to do something different than Grisham. It's Turow's details (his naturalistic dialogue, his attempts to flesh out minor characters, his reflections into the darkness of the human condition) that I appreciated more from a writer's perspective and that I probably recall better than the actual plot, which was, if I recall correctly, a seemingly run-of-the-mill whodunnit.

The hubster and I recently binged the Apple TV series, so I had to see how the book compares. I MUCH more preferred the series and didn't care for the book all that much. Perhaps because the book was published in the 80's, so things just seem outdated now. And it was sooooo long.

The narrator was fine, but he doesn’t sound like Jake Gyllenhaal

An amazing first novel: melancholy, atmospheric, a first person unreliable narrator, a plot that unspools masterfully.

4.5⭐️

I wish Goodreads had a feature when you add a new to-be-read book that you could make a note about who recommended it. I think it was an article about the best books of some category or some author's books that inspired. In any case, I remember that this was recommended as great mystery writing.
So I picked it up several times after putting it aside because I was sure that I must have missed something. Finally I took Judy's advice for when you are not sure that you want to read a book; read the last chapter to see if you it's worth going back to read the rest.
Conclusion - I just did not like this book. Didn't care for the misogynistic characters and don't plan to ever pick up anything else by this author.
If you enjoyed it - great.

I'm surprised I didn't like this. The reader was pretty good, but I just didn't like the way the author wrote. There was too much back story dumping irrelevant data that detracted from the main story. I might have stuck with it longer, except I didn't like the main character enough.

Excellent courtroom scenes. But the book dragged on and on and on. Even after the killer is revealed in the end, it goes into unnecessary explanations. I got bored by everything outside the courtroom, particularly the long drawn psycho-analysis.
The flashbacks to the cases that Rusty worked on as a prosecutor were too violent. I did not understand the relevance. I guess it was added just for the shock value.

I can't stand first person narration in present tense. Also, the characters are addressed inconsistently, by first name, or second name or by their nickname. (Nico / Delay/ Guardia, Painless/ Kumagai, Molto/ Tommy).

I like legal thrillers, and look forward to more in this series.

The show was better. FRTC.
₊˚ ‿︵‿︵‿︵୨୧ · · ♡ · · ୨୧‿︵‿︵‿︵ ˚₊
The Apple TV series for this book just started last night - with ... hello. Jake Gyllenhaal. And now I need to read this.

It's a rare day indeed when I say - I hope the book is as good as the show. Freaking addictive and mind binding.

I’ve watched too many damn CSI episodes in my life to not have guessed THAT ending

This is legit just Twilight for old white guys.

It wastes no time spouting off casual racism, sexism, and homophobia as it plods through its slipshod plot, both through its main character and the side pieces that surround him. Whatever, I thought as I read, I guess the main character is supposed to be an asshole? Surely it's gotta serve the story somehow... Nah. Rusty is simply a racist, sexist homophobe, both in his speech and in his mental machinations, and you're gonna love him just the way he is. When it becomes clear that the author actually expects you to sympathize with this motherfucker, you roll your eyes hard enough to propel you down a journey through history as you ruminate on all the poor souls a system stuffed with these crap biscuits has let down. I was half expecting Rusty to sheepishly protest he can't be racist at some point because he has black friends, but no one ever takes him or anyone else to the burner for their comfortably held biases, and he would've been capping anyhow because he doesn't even have any black friends.

And look, I understand this may have been the way people in law enforcement and other governmental positions actually spoke back then. But Scott Turow works it in so nonchalantly only to do nothing but reinforce it through the story he tells; I have to raise up my leg and mark him as being a part of the reason why elderly, conservative white folks consider this way of thinking to be okay. The plot centers itself upon the murder of a woman that Turow uses a very creative vocabulary to politely call a slut, and how a black man he uses a cascade of coded language to call the n-word took part in a scheme that our oh so sanctimonious hero finds himself apparently victimized by. Never mind that this woman navigated her way through a boy's club to her position as a prosecuting attorney. So what if the black man overcame a deck stacked against him to become a judge? No, these two are bad to the bone due to reasons owed to what they are rather than who they are: a slut and a n*****.

The fact that all of this turns out to be a subplot that distracts from the truth of the book's mystery without ever confronting the bias that makes the distraction possible stinks of a writer who holds those biases himself. I could talk about the confoundingly uneven characterizations, the weakness of all the parts that take place outside the trial, and the toked up drama of a pretty unrealistic case, but I just can't get past the fact that Scott Turow writes like a trash human-being. If you're interested in the legal thriller genre, I strongly recommend Defending Jacob by William Landay instead. Landay perfected the formula and did it without discriminating against anyone.