Discuss Mississippi Blood by Greg Iles: What do you think of Avery's method of courtroom defense? Do you agree with it?
Penn and his family initially question the tactics of Tom's defense attorney, Quentin Avery. To say that his legal style is unique would be a gross understatement. What do you think of Avery's method of courtroom defense? Do you agree with it?
RE: What do you think of Avery's method of courtroom defense? Do you agree with it?
It was hardly a "defense" and I think Penn was right to be bewildered and worried about it. But it certainly added to the drama of the trial and outcome.
Iles did a great job of keeping the reader off balance regarding the mental capacity of Avery. You were never quite sure if Avery was suffering from dementia or crazy like a fox. I think his method of letting the truth be told was a wise one because he and Tom were basing the defense on the fact that Tom was a truthful man with nothing to hide. Avery kept the prosecutor guessing and the reading audience along with him.
This is the only part of the book that I disliked. He cycled through this issue about a dozen times, Penn would be so angry that they wouldnt share court room tactics with him. Avery was portrayed as very sophisticated and his tactics were secretive, but I thought they were basically boring, especially when the theme kept repeating itself.
It was fruatating not to see him appeal. Once the readers were assured his health was fine, I was okay with it because of Mr. Avery’s experiences. His experiences speak for themselves.That what I remind myself and put my faith in him. Regardless that I hate Penn, Penn legal background is nothing compare to Mr. Aery.
Suspense was a factor here. And just wondering what was going on, that Tom might have been found guilty, kept the story going. Having no knowlege of the law, I'll accept Iles knew what he was doing with this point.
I thought it was an interesting defense, full of surprises. I think he set it up well when Avery asked Penn not to second guess his strategy or ask question before the trial began.
It was interesting, although I doubt any defense lawyer would do what Avery did. I think he was counting on evidence that wasn’t guaranteed, which was risky.
Several times, I could be heard shouting, "What are you doing?!" But I really liked Quentin and so I wanted to trust him. Admittedly, I did not through most of the trial.
Sometimes I don't think we question those that have our lives in their hands enough. (attorney's, doctors) We have an obligation to question what they are doing. If I was Penn and his family I would have questioned Quentin Avery more. I might not have received an answer but I would have tried. The trial made the book suspenseful which is a good thing in a mystery novel. However, at times it got tedious and unbelievable. So no I do not agree with Avery's methods of defense. He was playing with Tom's life.
And there almost seemed to be a smirk on his face as he kept telling Penn and his mother to trust him.
I think Avery's method would only work in a book.
Interesting and non-conventional--however, Avery had Tom's blessing to proceed as he saw fit. Tom was calling the shots, and Avery was following Tom's wishes.
I guess it added some suspense, but I always enjoy the legal banter that goes back and forth between the prosecution and the defense, so there was very little of that. And yes, very unlikely to actually be used in a real case.
I agree that the "defense" was hardly a defense, and unlikely to be used in a real case.
Avery's "defense" upset me. I especially didn't understand why he refused to discuss it with Penn, who was not only his clients's son, but an experienced trial attorney himself. How very frustrating and frightening for the very worried family. At the end, it became clear that the defense was based on Tom being an honest man whose behavior throughout his life has indicated the nature of his character, and wanting to only get at the truth. But I know that I would have been feeling extremely upset with the defense, especially on top of the fact that Tom refused to tell anyone what really happened that night at Viola's. Too many secrets!
In the real world Avery would be placing his Errors & Omissions insurer on notice! Avery, however, was at the mercy of his client’s instructions. Ethically, he could not divulge his strategy to Penn without Tom’s express permission.
From a different perspective, Avery is a legendary lawyer with a mesmerizing voice and a commanding presence. Sometimes, that is all it takes.
I think Avery's method of courtroom defense, was used to build tension for both the people in the courtroom, and people reading the book. The tension was heightened by Penn's worry and doubt of Avery. The jury was suddenly paying closer attention. Anyone becoming bored with the book at this point, perks up a little and wants to know what Avery will do.
His aim was to let Tom be convicted with as little prison time as possible. Avery ended up being too good and so Tom pleaded guilty. It seemed sad to me that they could not find another way to handle the situation.
Avery had no choice - it was exactly what Tom wanted, and he wouldn't allow Avery do anything else! I think Avery would have taken a completely different approach if he could have. Avery was a smart character, and his hands were tied, too.
For some time Avery's approach left me frustrated. I could feel my blood pressure spiking - along with Penn when Avery didn't jump on something a prosecutorial witness said or a technique the prosecution used. I worried for Penn's mother - but as I learned that Avery was only following orders - doing what Tom instructed, I relaxed and just went with it. Obviously Tom's guilt led him to insist that Avery not argue or contest, and once I realized the behavior was not from ignorance or lack of ability, I just followed the plot and knew it would work itself out as intended. What a ride though!
I don't think you would see this defense used in a "real" trial, but Avery was only following what Tom had instructed.
I agree with annettes in that this defense would not happen in real life but it definitely contributed to the suspense of the story and took us through all the necessary plot twists to come to the surprising revelations. I did not see Peggy's role in Viola's death coming. That's fine storytelling in my book.
I felt the courtroom segment was Hollywood dramatization, but it did keep one interested to know what would happen next.
I agree with some of the previous comments. I believe Isles portrayed Avery's method of courtroom defense in such a manner so as to build suspense. However, I found it unrealistic and very frustrating as a reader.
Well in the end, it all worked. However like Penn I kept wondering why he seemed to going against all norms of courtroom procedures.
It was very frustrating and confusing.