We, the Jury

De: Robert Rotstein

Narrado por: full cast

‘’We the Jury has what most legal thrillers lack—total authenticity, which is spellbinding.'’ —James Patterson

On the day before his twenty-first wedding anniversary, David Sullinger buried an ax in his wife’s skull. Now, eight jurors must retire to the deliberation room and decide whether David committed premeditated murder—or whether he was a battered spouse who killed his wife in self-defense.

Told from the perspective of over a dozen participants in a murder trial, We, the Jury examines how public perception can mask the ghastliest nightmares. As the jurors stagger toward a verdict, they must sift through contradictory testimony from the Sullingers’ children, who disagree on which parent was Satan; sort out conflicting allegations of severe physical abuse, adultery, and incest; and overcome personal animosities and biases that threaten a fair and just verdict. Ultimately, the central figures in We, the Jury must navigate the blurred boundaries between bias and objectivity, fiction and truth.

©2018 Robert Rotstein (P)2018 Blackstone Audio, Inc.

Well written, extremely well performed, far-fetched ending

This is something like a modern twist on 12 Angry Men. I quite enjoyed it. The language was rich and compelling; the premise was intriguing; and the characters were realistic with generally recognizable tendencies. That is until the end of the book.

I would have preferred a more traditional mystery where the conflicts that were given importance throughout the novel moved the plot forward. In this case, many of the conflicts seemed designed to address social issues and didn’t impact the plot at all. But they were presented with dimension and didn’t come off as preachy, so they didn’t detract from the story.

I understand why the author didn’t want the story to end with the verdict. That would have been too simple, not to mention it wouldn’t have supported the battered spouse issue. But I found the ending entirely unbelievable. To put it in terms the law, to understand the ending required information not in evidence. And the “surprise ending” was terribly far-fetched.

The performances were excellent, though, and overall, it was quite an entertaining few hours.

Good listen

I enjoyed this story. interesting concept. It ended kind of abruptly but there wasn't any more story to tell. If you like to deep think about a book concept after reading this is a perfect book for that.

Insightful book that lays our justice system bare

If you've ever admired the premise and execution of the classic film "12 Angry Men", you should not skip "We the Jury" assuming it's the same thing, but you will appreciate this book in the same way for the same reasons. It's a fantastic exploration of all the intricate complexities that factor into our criminal justice system. In the minds of the average busy American like me, major cases often take linear form unless given otherwise: Crime, Trial, Verdict. This book uncovers that neat set of bedfellows and masterfully lays out all the nuanced factors that fall between, particularly the human component brought in by the lawyers, judges, investigators, journalists, court workers, and finally, the jurors.

There's a lot I could say about this book, but most of it is summed up well enough in the paragraph above, and more specifics would take away from the experience of the novel, so I will settle for detailing both my biggest criticism and my favorite part:

First, in regards to the end of the novel, or more specifically the outcome of the case that is the setting of the novel, I was left unsatisfied, and in what I consider to be a completely unfair way to the author. The story lays out all the framework of exactly how the case will resolve after the end of the book, and I like that resolution. However, the novel never "spoon feeds" in any of the characters' narratives that this outcome is coming, and because of that the reader is left with the knowledge of closure, but not the feeling of closure, which I would argue is more important to a quality ending. Did I NEED that information spoon fed to me in order to know the outcome? No, the facts of the case were clear. Did I want it to be? Absolutely. I don't think this is a criticism of the author's ability, as I've no doubt it was deliberate, and I respect the author for having that control over his domain. That's his prerogative. Rather, it's a personal criticism of the choice he made to do so. I admit that's subjective, of course, and many will likely appreciate that sort of literary approach more favorably than I did. Fair enough.

My favorite, absolute delight I took away from this book is the role of the reporter/blogger character. She is crafted to be an objectively reprehensible human being, living out all the horrible, lying, collaterally damaging stereotypes of the quintessential unethical reporter in fiction. She has no regard for the truth nor empathy for the consequences of her feckless reporting, and arguably causes nothing but harm throughout the events of this book. All she cares about is getting a scoop and using it to make money and drum up readership. BUT (and this is a huge BUT) it is this character's tenacious, unintentional dedication to providing transparency in the system that allows the resolution of this story in a morally satisfying way, regardless of the fecklessness of the character. It presents a wonderful, perfect example of the importance and indispensability of the fourth estate, even at its absolute worst. Given the zeitgeist of mutiny against "mainstream" or "elite" media, I've tried to explain to so many people why it's still so important to embrace the media and free reporting simultaneously with fair criticism of the institution, often in ways that fall short of properly conveying the point. While I won't give more specifics for fear of spoiling this book, suffice it to say going forward I'm going to recommend this book in lieu of attempting that explanation, because I can't possibly imagine a more perfect living, breathing example of the concept.

Different in a really good way.

I love legal thrillers and I really enjoyed this one. The prospectives from which it was written really make it stand out and it won’t be one of those books I listen to, forget about and when I see it again later have to pop over to good reads to see weather or not I’ve already read it. My only complaint is that I feel like it could have gone on a bit longer. I wasn’t ready for it to be over and felt that there could have been a lot more story to tell. It’s pretty short.

Loved it

The characters had depth and the story was well written. Just when you thought you knew where it was going you would find out more information and your own thought process would change. Loved it!

First Their Were Eight

POV by each jurist read by a narrator for each character was brilliant. The secrets and internal struggles kept me guessing. I guessed wrong.

Great Read

This book was such a great read! The story was well written, well produced and a fantastic story to follow. I work in the Judiciary System, as a Court Clerk, and found the story mostly true to nature. The way the author delved into each character was refreshing and driven, I felt I knew them at the end of the story. I loved having the different voices behind each character, and being able to hear the story and their POV through their voices.

Fantastic read, interesting case, and I was on the guilty side the whole read. Which side are you on??

Uniquely Brilliant

Loved the varying degrees of perspective and usage of emotional range that each character came to the table with. It was like a mini-series; you had characters you loved, you hated and you appreciated. Brilliant!

A great story!

I loved the characters in this book, they were strong and relatable. I wanted the story to continue but it ended not how I expected!

Ae the Jury

I enjoyed this book so much. There was never a boring part to this book.I enjoyed the narrators.