Review of Joel J. Seidemann's "In the Interest of Justice"

By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross

Steve and I have a book review in today's Washington Times of Joel Seidemann's new book, In the Interest of Justice:  Great Opening and Closing Arguments of the Last 100 Years.  Seidemann's book compiles some of the past century's best -- and worst -- examples of courtroom advocacy.

One of the main points that Steve and I make in our review is that the book is relevant not only for the examples of courtroom advocacy contained therein, but also because it provides the reader with a snapshot of the most vital issues of the past century, through the lens of courtroom argument.  One such issue that the book touches upon is the threat of Islamic terrorism.  The book contains transcripts of Zacarias Moussaoui's request to fire his lawyers and proceed with his defense pro se.  Here's our take on the section on Moussaoui:

"Mr. Moussaoui proudly proclaimed that he wanted to fire the federal public defender assigned to him.  Quoting by memory from the Koran, he stated, 'O you who believe, take not as your Bitanah, adviser, consultant, friend, those outside of your religion, pagan, Jew, Christian, and hypocrites, since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you.  They desire to harm you severely.  Hatred has already appeared from their mouth.  But what their breast conceals is far worse.'  And even though Mr. Moussaoui requested a bench trial, he also viciously insulted the federal judge assigned to his case, Leonie Brinkema:  'I will not entertain the illusion that a U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema is an honest broker.  Reality tells me that this judge is here as a field general, entrusted with the mission to get this matter over quickly.  Every general has a commander in chief, and I know how much the U.S. commander in chief wants me to be over quickly.'  Mr. Moussaoui's plain contempt for the U.S. legal system and the defiant way that he has been able to make a fool of the court by openly mocking it may raise another question for readers:  when it is appropriate to use the courts as a primary vehicle to respond to wrongdoing.  Mr. Moussaoui's trial � and his defiance an lack of contrition � strongly suggest that in the war on terror, something more than the courtroom is needed as a first line of response to our enemies."

While we don't mention this in the Times review, the point that something more than the courtroom is needed as a first response in the war on terror becomes even more clear when one compares Moussaoui's mockery of the court with another example of courtroom advocacy in Seidemann's book, the moving opening statement of Adolf Eichmann's prosecutor Gideon Hausner.  In his opening statement, Hausner outlines the historical persecution inflicted upon the Jews, and then painstakingly details how a malevolent desk-bound bureaucrat like Eichmann was able to inflict far more damage on the Jewish people than the Pharoah in Egypt or Haman.  Eichmann's trial came after Hitler's regime had been toppled; in contrast to the Moussaoui case, when Hausner claims that he is not standing alone, but "[w]ith me are 6 million accusers," there is a palpable sense of closure.  One can never make full restitution for something as horrible as the Holocaust, but Eichmann's trial seems to be one of the concluding chapters in a tragic tale.  Moussaoui's, on the other hand, is obviously just part of an opening salvo in a broader war.

In the Interest of Justice is a good book; I recommend it.  Note also that the Washington Times accidentally overstates the book's price.  While the Times claims that it costs $41.50, the listed cover price is actually $28.95, and it's currently available for $19.11 on Amazon.com.

TrackBack