A procedural legal drama. Very detailed concerning the law. Story is about a judge who must decide if a decision should be reversed based on new information concerning the law and case. He also receives death threats during this time. At the end the reader finds out who was sending the death threats and what the decision will be on the case. For me, it wasn’t a satisfying conclusion.

This was my least favorite Turow book. I never did "get" the legal argument in the Warnovitz case despite re-reading several times. I also felt that when we found out who the person threatening the main character was, it was kind of a "gotcha". Readers did not have enough information to figure out who the culprit might have been.

This book drifts until tied up at the end. Somehow, I managed to make it through though. 5 of 10 stars

Wow. This book was written well, I suppose. But the concept is terrible and distasteful. The judge is hearing a rape case while reminiscing about his own college experience, including his involvement in the gang rape of a drunk girl. The tone is too sympathetic; the judge not compunctious enough. Who wants to read 200+ pages of rationalization of sexual assault?!

Turow's earlier Presumed Innocentwas fantastic. Limitations unfortunately has a rather unsubstantial and forgettable plot.

I started reading Scott Turow's books many years ago. I actually was more drawn to his writings than to John Grisham's around those beginning years. Found this unpacking boxes (still) from our move. It was fascinating to put some of the last years' legal dramas at the forefront in relation to this one, published in 2006. Especially in the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominees in the last few years. Should you be reprimanded or punished for something that took place many years ago?? I still not sure I have that answer---it's complicated..
George Mason has been in the law field for decades, a judge on the Court of Appeals for the last 10 years. An issue has come to the bench that has given him pause. He was involved in a similar event while he was in college. Now he needs to rule, along with 2 other judges, on the fate of these four men who have come before them after a complaint has been filed.
Scott Turow is adept at blending several different stories taking place at the same time in the same book without confusion for the reader. One of the problems in this book, just for me, was my lack of understanding of most of the legalese, although he did try to make it less complicated. I think I will check out more of his books. It's interesting to look back and compare how society has or has not changed.

Turow has the most complex, most real characters of any writer I’ve read. This plus his exceptionally beautiful prose make every word worth it. As usual, his weak-point is the plot: here, a lot of anxiety is wasted on red-herring threats, only to resolve things with a simple, non-dangerous outcome. Still, it’s such a good read because of the way he writes. Bonus here, for the first time in his series, he’s managed to limit himself to 90,000 words or so, about half of his usual, bloated book. Yes, all the writing is beautiful, but even immersed in beauty, I eventually want something to happen. Not a problem here. Turow has discovered pacing. Perhaps Turow readers have not: why does this book have a low rating?

While a judge grapples with actions the defendant is charged with, the story was stale. This does not equal some earlier books.

A fine mystery, though the resolution of the crime may be too mild for some readers. I personally found it more realistic and practical than the typical mysteries you read or watch on TV. In fact, the mystery takes a backseat to the real message of this short book - reconciling past ethical decisions. This is a book more about ethics than whodunit, though the culprit is revealed. John Grisham gets most of the plaudits for his legal thrillers but I find Turow’s books to be more real, even understated, than Grisham, who often goes too far over the top for my tastes.

demorei mais tempo a ler porque as aulas começaram mas achei o livro super interessante. não esperava mesmo gostar tanto! ficou ainda melhor com as anotações da carol (o desenho da mão está INCRÍVEL). este livro tem a intenção de nos fazer refletir sobre as nossas ações, quer passadas quer presentes, e como não nos pudemos agarrar somente a elas.
"NÓS TENTAMOS SER HUMANOS"

Short read. Not quite the thriller of Presumed Innocent, but Turow didn't disappoint.

There are limitations everywhere in this short but surprisingly layered legal mystery thriller. There's a thorny statute of limitiations and also evidentiary limitation questions in the horrific rape case in front of Judge George Mason on the Kindle County appeals bench. There's the limitaitons imposed between George and his wife Patrice as a result of Partice's radiation treatments. There's many other limitations, including the limitations imposed on a judge, and many imposed by the nature of relationships. There are also the limitations of one's expectations. Most of all, there are the limitations of law and justice, two very separate things.

In addition to having to decide and write the opinion on a rape case where the law may not lead to justice, George is coping with his wife's cancer and threats of harm coming by email. Turow writes excellent legal mystery thrillers although I found the thriller aspect here rather tame compared to what I usually read for thrillers. Perhaps legal suspense is a better description. You grow to know and like George Mason, appreciating the position he is in and sympathizing with the coping difficulty he's having making any decisions or taking any affirmative act. All the characters orbiting around George are well developed, recognizeable. Turow is a master, even when writing a shorter legal mystery suspense on commission for the New York Times Magazine. He kept me guessing to the very end.