America on Trial: Inside the Legal Battles That Transformed Our Nation

by Alan M. Dershowitz

The renowned attorney and bestselling author reveals how notable trials throughout our history have helped to shape our nation. Offering insights into the human condition, these trials serve as a historical document, chronicling the struggles and passions of their time.

Genres: History, Law, Nonfiction, Politics, American History

608 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 14, 2004

About the author

Alan Morton Dershowitz is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is known for his career as an attorney in several high-profile law cases and commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

He has spent most of his career at Harvard, where, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor in its history, until Noam Elkies took the record. Dershowitz still holds the record as the youngest person to become a professor of law there.

As a criminal appellate lawyer, Dershowitz has won thirteen out of the fifteen murder and attempted murder cases he has handled. He successfully argued to overturn the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of Bülow's wife, Sunny. Dershowitz was the appellate advisor for the defense in the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.

Reviews

[Marie Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved the format. The book provides a short (~5 page) writeup of many US cases, allegedly the ones that most changed legal thought, or most captured the thought of the time. The writeup provides context, commentary and interpretation of implications of the trials, rather than detailed description of the trials.

[Robert Melnyk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredibly interesting and informative book by Alan Dershowitz detailing a number of controversial, fascinating, and sometimes pivotal trials in U.S. history. I have a lot of admiration and respect for Alan Dershowitz. I am a Republican and he is a Democrat, but I find him to be very fair and reasonable, and he always makes his arguments based on facts, not emotions. Some of the cases outlined in this book are more significant and/or interesting than others, but all contain something that makes them significant to the history of the law in the United States. Well worth the read if you have any interest in the legal battles that have ensued in our nation's history.

[Cheryl · Rating 5 out of 5]

“America on Trial” is a fascinating look at some of the controversial and pivotal cases which were significant in our nation’s history. There are some cases that I expected to read about but there are also a number of cases that were new to me.

A case that I knew something about, but not as much as I thought, was the Rosenberg case. I was surprised to find that the case against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who were tried and found guilty of wartime espionage in 1951 and sentenced to electrocution, was a lot more complicated than I ever knew. The justice department knew, based on the evidence available at the time, that Ethel Rosenberg’s role in the case was minimal, but the DOJ went after her anyway in order to increase leverage on her husband Julius. In addition, some of the evidence against the Rosenbergs was questionable and probably false. Julius Rosenberg was almost unquestionably a spy, but there was also significant abuse of power in the case.

The Bakke case in 1978 was another interesting case. This was the case where UC-Davis Medical School’s policy of affirmative action by fixed racial quotas was challenged by a white man named Alan Bakke who was denied admission. The Supreme Court ruled that fixed racial quotas were unconstitutional but race may be used as “a factor” or a consideration in admissions. Internal memoranda show that without Justice William Brennan’s politicking behind the scenes, the Supreme Court would have struck down all race based affirmative action programs. Instead, Brennan persuaded the justices to allow race as “a factor” even though Justice Brennan himself wrote “we were just deluding ourselves if we think there is a meaningful, judicially enforceable distinction between setting aside a reasonable number of places for qualified minorities and a process that accomplishes the same end by taking race into account as one of several admissions factors.” Basically, race as a factor in admissions and racial quotas amount to a distinction without a difference and the justices knew it. But they believed the public would more likely support using race as a factor than setting racial quotas in admissions.

The case of Bush vs Gore in the 2000 election was another interesting case. Dershowitz argues that the Supreme Court had no constitutional jurisdiction in the case. Apparently, a majority of justices were outraged at what they saw as crass partisanship by the Florida Supreme Court. They saw the Florida Supreme Court as acting like a bunch of Democrat political hacks in their handling of the recount. Even if that were the case, Dershowitz argues that according to the constitution, a state court has the right to be wrong on matters of state law and the Supreme Court has no right to correct a state court, no matter how egregious the error, unless the mistake is a matter of federal constitutional or statutory law. Elections fall under the jurisdiction of state law. Knowing this, it sheds a lot of light on why the Supreme Court was so reluctant to take ANY case regarding any individual state handling of the 2020 election. Individual state court may or may not have made erroneous judgements, but after the 2000 elections and the divisiveness which ensued, the Supreme Court is very reluctant to get involved in any case that would require them to possibly overturn the judgement of any state supreme court.

I’ve read several books by Alan Dershowitz and I found this book very enlightening and well worth reading.

[Carl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dershowitz covers 60+ American trials he selected from Colonial times until 2003 (the book was published in 2004). Among the trials are the Salem witchcraft trials, Dred Scott, the Scopes trial, Roe v. Wade, and the O.J. Simpson trial. Dershowitz picked some of these trials because of the legal precedents they established, he picked other trials because of their notoriety and how they reflected the “passions and attitudes” of their times.

Dershowitz gives the basic outlines of the trials, and of course has his own opinions upon the merits of the cases and the performances of the lawyers and judges. I got the impression that he regarded the majority of the trials in American history as being flawed in some way or another, some of them quite badly. In many trials there were biased judges, in others there was prosecutorial misconduct, and there were a number of inept lawyers.

Dershowitz surprised me with his ideas about some trials. For example, in the Scopes “monkey” trial, Dershowitz gives good marks to William Jennings Bryan, who was not the bigoted yokel he is often made out to be. The book that John Scopes used in his classes was filled with the worst kind of eugenics trash, and it was right for Bryan to oppose it.

The biggest surprise for me was Dershowitz’s opinion of the O.J. Simpson trial, where Dershowitz was one of the defense attorneys. Dershowitz thought that from a technical standpoint it was a pretty ordinary murder trial. What made it extraordinary was the set of celebrities involved.

As a longtime observer of the Supreme Court, Dershowitz came to think that for the most general cases like Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court justices usually have their minds made up before the trials start. Only really good or really bad lawyers can make the justices change their minds.

An odd feature of the book is Dershowitz almost makes personal attacks on the Supreme Court justices Anthony Scalia, (who was quite alive when the book was written), and Clarence Thomas. Dershowitz strongly disagreed with their originalist and textualist position. Dershowitz said that Scalia and Thomas would have agreed with the Dred Scott verdict that the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended to disqualify freed African slaves from U.S. citizenship, so we should keep it that way.

[Leo · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting summary of famous USA trials with insights from Alan Dershowitz. As he states the famous dictum of Santayana - we must learn from the past. I trust that his insights will prove beneficial to those who are in positions of influence. Its intriguing and frustrating to see the pride of humans lead to defeat in the court of law and many injustices over the years, but its thrilling to see the system work when properly applied. Proves to me that one again honesty and adherence to the law are a help and safety for all. The Constitution is the bulwark of our legal system and I trust that honest men and women will be in positions of influence, and if not the checks and balances contained therein will save us from tyranny.

[Ethan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not a textbook. It's not even a collection of case briefs, because sometimes Dershowitz leaves out the facts of well-known cases like O.J. Simpson's in favor of analysis, commentary, or historical perspective and impact.

However, as long as you understand it's written from his point of view, you get what you expect. There are nuggets of great historical value (Mount Rushmore is carved into a sacred Native American landmark?!), and it goes far beyond the usual AP US History approach to court cases. It might not cover everything you want, and it might not be completely comprehensive in the cases it does cover, but it is a solid read.

[Don Heiman · Rating 5 out of 5]

In 2004 Warner Books published Alan Dershowitz’s exceptional book “America on Trial: Inside the Legal Battles that Transformed Our Nation.” His 568 page book is divided into 14 Chapters and covers 63 landmark court cases These cases define where we have been as a nation and what we will experience as our constitutional rights are continuously interpreted by by American courts. The cases in Alan Dershowitz’s book and course lectures are also based on evolving generational understanding of American social justice and mores. (P)

[William Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Insightful short, predisposed remarks about some of America's landmark judicial decisions. From the trial of Zenger, Dred Scott, Roe v Wade, to Clinton's Impeachment, Dershowitz shines a constant hue on the weaknesses, fragility, and often failures of the US's judiciary. America on Trial makes for interesting and though-provoking reading especially when reflecting on how post-2016 America may lighten the historical hue Dershowitz may now cast on America's history.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent overview of critical legal battles that have shaped the American legal system - briefs of American trials from 1776 to our modern day. I really enjoyed reading until I got to several cases from the 1970s and beyond where many briefs were radically colored with an ultra-liberal bias.

[Kody Dibble · Rating 4 out of 5]

A decently written book full of legal whit...Very much focused on what Dershowitz believes is the best actual theory of what occurred.. Crimes from the beginning of time up to trials of terrorism are all included.

[Miss Cat · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting, but very dry in parts. More of a history book.

[Harriet Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

America on Trial

America on Trial, by Alan Dershowitz, is an interesting book. I don't always agree with the book, but I do recommend this book.

[William Kleinman · Rating 5 out of 5]

great synopsis of some of Americas most important trials. love that the included the Salem witch trials. Wish that they would have included the slaughterhouse case or lochner vs New York?

[Grant · Rating 3 out of 5]

the book is a collection of cases Dershowitz proposes transformed our nation, beginning from colonial times until the present day Guantanamo detainees. Dershowitz mostly does a good job of setting the climate and characters of all parties involved. and there are several case discussions such as the Bakke decision where he succinctly and intelligently explains not only the decision and its effect but also the "method behind the madness". there are accounts of what happened in the court room, but very little attention is given to to the procedure of the court room. and that procedure is usually what is at the heart of the injustices committed in the criminal trials he discusses. and the more recent the case, the more heavy-handed and opinionated dershowitz becomes. in fact i might have given the book a higher score but his bush v. gore case and "detainee" case discussions are nearly unreadable. they're similar to a sophmore rant, repeating the same point without ever offering support. (for more on this read some of my sophmore papers)

but he does nicely break the cases up by time period. he selects a solid and mostly fascinating collection of american trials and appeals, though many of dershowitz's choices seem drawn to the sensational and not always the legally significant. Many of the choices are criminal cases and often concerning murder. (Dershowitz is a criminal defense attorney; i.e. O.J. Simpson) For every Bakke case (where the Supremes ruled what was permissible for race, gender, etc. based admissions considerations to colleges) and Dred Scott case (ruling a slave is property no matter if he/she is in a slave state or escaped to a free state and hence must be returned to owner) there is also the Harvard Medical School murder (where one professor stood trial for the murder of another professor) or the case of Claus von Bulow (who stood trial for the attempted murder of his rich wife and eventually found innocent on appeal).

The latter, more sensational cases are fun reads and allow Dershowitz to focus on a topic of legal integrity such as a biased judge, prosecutorial misconduct, racists/biased jury, or the use of a contorted standard for the insanity defense. but i would argue many are hardly cases that transformed out nation. many in that "sensational" category hadn't any real legal significance outside their immediate decisions on the parties involved. they did not become legal standards for which other courts of law looked to. cases i would argue are missing from this collection that did have great legal significance and transformed our nation are the mid-20th century commerce clause cases from the Supremes that allowed the federal government to fight racism and discrimination by broadening its regulation of businesses that before were considered strictly state or local and hence immune from federal oversight. Or Marbury v. Madison, where the Supreme Court first slyly granted itself the power to decide if a law or ruling was constitutional or not, and the power to strike it down.

perceptively dershowitz argues what i call the "sensational" cases instead transformed us as a country by our social reaction and thereby affected future court decisions from without. dershowitz repeatedly makes the distinction between cases' legal significance and their social significance. unfortunately, whether they be legally or socially significant he usually fails to even try to build on his arguments and show how one case effected another. instead each historical segment or sometimes each case is analyzed under glass. The nice thing about that is these mostly do not need to be read in order. I think one could pick up the book and read a couple and then later turn to a new section and read the case discussions that sound interesting at that point, but with one exception. In the colonial and early american period sections, Dershowitz does a nice job of explaining where our trial system comes from, how it evolved away from procedure we no longer share with the British, and what we were concerned with gaining from our trials.

but if a reader is looking for a book that pieces the important (usually supreme court cases) and legally significant cases of our country, any constitutional law book will do. as this book is not that.

[Kim. E. · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting, large book written by Alan Dershowitz, best known for his involvement in the O.J. Simpson trial. The purpose of this book is to look at different legal cases throughout our history and to see how they impacted our society legally and socially. Dershowitz says in the introduction that "some provide insight into the human condition. Others are noteworthy simply because they involve famous, or infamous, people. They all tell us something about our nation and about ourselves."

The author divides this book into different time periods, such as Colonial America, The Roaring Twenties, The Vietnam War, The Civil Rights Movement, and to the time of publication. Each time era includes several cases with a brief summation of the case, and his evaluation. This book includes The Rosenburgs, Salem Witch Trials, Brown v. Board of Education, Lizzie Borden, Roe v. Wade, Jeffrey MacDonald, Lt. Valley of My Lai massacre, up to Bush v. Gore.

I found myself becoming more involved and interested in this book as more time eras developed, and I was more interested in the case. Some cases Dershowitz wrote very little, and I would have liked more information and development of the case, so I was disappointed. In others, particularly if he was involved in the case such as the Mike Tyson rape case, Dershowitz had more to say and his opinion became more prevent. This was the situation in Bush v. Gore.

Dershowitz made good points regarding freedom of the press, political involvement in criminal cases, and the role of the Supreme Court in overreaching its role, particularly in Bush v. Gore.

I'm not a law student, so it's easy to understand for those of us simply interested in court proceedings. I wish he could have included that more, but I'm glad I took the time to read this book. Won't see court proceedings the same.

[Melissa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Here's what I liked:
- The introduction is incredibly well written and does exactly what an introduction is supposed to do. It made me excited to read the book. It talked about ancient, historical and global influences on the American legal system.
- Dershowitz has a great handle on American history and how it affected the legal cases at each step of history.
- I appreciate that it's not always about the big cases. For every Dred Scott, Lizzie Borden and OJ Simpson, there's John Webster, Stanford White and Abrams vs. United States.

What I didn't like
- Later introductions are less about legal history than they are about general US history. That's not useful to me. It became boring and began to drag.
- Discussions of the cases are too short, quotations are too long and too frequent. Dershowitz relies too much on what the principals says and less on his interpretation. For cases that I'm not familiar with, he doesn't bother to state the facts of the crime.

I love love love old legal cases and Dershowitz knows his stuff. He's been involved in a lot of the best current cases. He shines when discussing legal complexities of the early 20th century and I really enjoyed the earlier chapters. I just wish the case discussions had been more in-depth and there had been more of them! I feel like it was too brief, and he really only skimmed the surface. IT could have been so much better.

[Chris Schneider · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dershowitz, celebrity lawyer, Harvard law professor, and defender of OJ Simpson, discusses 15 trials he views as the most important in the past century. He provides insights into many of the trials he presided over, and in many ways got me thinking differently about cases I thought really only had one reasonable side (particularly Roe vs. Wade and the Scopes Monkey Trial). I especially appreciate his lawyerly way of approaching serious issues such as abortion, racism, and right wing Christianity. He is able to present cases fairly while still projecting his own opinions into the matter.

Among other things, I learned that the Scopes Monkey Trial is not going down in history accurately, just how low the Gore vs Bush trial brought the US, Mike Tyson was innocent and a victim of sorts, and why waterboarding is, without question, torture and a heinous violation of international law.

Many things to learn here. Not sure how all of these trials are significant (to be honest, some seem self-serving to Dershowitz) even after hearing about them, but overall this is a worthwhile read to understand the issues behind many trials that had an effect on where we are now in the US.

[Og · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm really enjoying this book. I'm about 90% finished but the book is so enjoyable, I am not worried about my review changing.

Dershowitz discusses the cases that have influenced our law and politics. This book is especially interesting in light of the recent Supreme Court hearings on DOMA and same sex marriage. You don't have to be a lawyer to appreciate this book, but it does make it easier.

Dershowitz discusses cases including OJ, Mike Tyson, Klaus von Bulow, and Bush v. Gore. Keep in mind that he was personally involved in some of the cases so his opinions are different than the average person. I definitely got the feeling that he thinks OJ did it - big shocker, I know.

Keep in mind that he is very left wing so take his opinions with a grain of salt if you are not.

This is like listening to a fascinating law school lecture - and that's a good thing.

[Jim Good · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting perspective on the courts and justice in America. Uses trials to show the development of law in society and the evolution of thought in some cases (segregation, abortion, states rights, etc.). The most interesting case is that of Mike Tyson. And the Bush vs. Gore election decision of the Supreme Court. In Tyson he derides abuses of the justice system and gives several examples of why and how the court ruled the way it did. In Bush vs. Gore he shows how politics interfered with justice as he explains the court’s most conservative justices suddenly revoked states rights as their central vantage point for political expediency.

[Harpal · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is freakin' hilarious. Love or hate Dershowitz, it doesn't matter for this book. The Prof decides to take on every major case in US legal history, but not with a simple summary or review of the basic legal history. No, no, that would be below our dear Dershowitz. He proceeds to give a revisionist account of just about every single case. It's awesome. I have no idea how well respected any of these ideas are, but it's a great read with all sorts of interesting tidbits of info.

If you can only pick one case, go straight to the Scopes Monkey trial. Yep, he's got his own take on that one too, and it's awesome.

[Mike]

I own this book, so it is 'on-hold' a lot while I take care of library books and the like. This is a good book to leave and come back to as it is divided up into decent-sized chapters that are sequential but not overly dependent.

So far, I am really enjoying this book - it is very readable and quite interesting for a history/law buff like myself and I look forward to picking it up again soon.

[Valerie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Generally a pretty good introduction to some of the major trials in the history of the US. The author draws some conclusions I don't necessarily agree with, and he was personally involved in some of the more recent cases, so you have to take what he says about those with a grain of salt, but overall a good read.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disappointed by the shallow description of Roe v. Wade. (My primary purpose in picking up this book was to learn more about that case.) But I learned more about the O.J. Simpson trial as well as Rodney King's case, Claus von Bulow's case, the Mike Tyson rape case, the Scopes trial, and the Rosenberg's case. 3 stars.

[Kristina Coop-a-Loop · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting review of some of the famous (infamous) trials of the 1980s and 1990s. I do agree with him that the Supreme Court must stay above politics in order to function properly, but we all know that doesn't happen.

[Beth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very fascinating read! Author is quite opinionated, but that might be why the book is better than just reading the historical facts. He has so much first-hand experience, you can't help but think he is right on with most of his opinions.

[Sammy · Rating 3 out of 5]

i read this book while still in law school. I had read most of the cases and had already anylized them from a legal scholar's point of view. I think it ruined the book for me.

[Simon · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is a bunch of cases and I am reading them selectively. He is very readable. Okay, I decided to read all of them.

[Kim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great overview of major trials and their impact on the judicial system through American history. Good introduction.

[Ken · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good overview. I tired of the format.

[Stephie Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another great book by Dershowitz. He seems to be very good author, as I have not read a book of his that wasn't good.