Hoffman loses the plot (Plea of Insanity - Jilliane Hoffman)

Member Name: fizzywizzy

Product:	Plea of Insanity - Jilliane Hoffman
Date:	29/05/08 (153 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Credible characters, good basic idea

Disadvantages: Loses its way and focuses on wrong plot, too many details about characters

Alerted by a telephone call from a young child in the early hours of the morning the police arrive at a family home in an affluent suburb to find an horrific scene - a mother and three children stabbed to death while the husband, a well respected local surgeon, is alive but injured. The murder enquiry soon points to the man as the chief suspect and in court David Arquette pleads not guilty by reason of insanity. Junior prosecutor Julia Valenciano finds herself offered the chance of a lifetime when chief prosecutor Rick Bellido asks her to "second seat" the case alongside him but her delight at being given the opportunity other junior prosecutors dream of soon comes into conflict with a tragic event from her own past.


"Plea of Insanity" is a loose follow on to "Retribution" and "Last Witness": there is now a new central character in Julia Valenciano but there are occasional references to CJ Townsend the attorney that featured in the Jilliane Hoffman's previous novels and one or two minor characters continue to play a part and the setting is still the Miami State Prosecutors Department. While Hoffman's previous novels have straddled the crime fiction subgenres, "Plea of Insanity" almost exclusively falls into court room/legal drama with nothing of the thriller aspect seen in the other novels and herein lies a major weakness with this novel. The basic premise for the story is rather good: was David Arquette insane at the time the crime was committed?

Unfortunately what should be the central thread of the story fades into the background and the dominant story is what happened in the past in Julia's family. This is told gradually throughout the book but it is entirely obvious from the outset what happened and the narration soon becomes tedious and drawn out.

Another failing is the focus on schizophrenia which, while interesting, takes over the book unnecessarily and really has more to do with the thread about Julia's family than the Arquette case. Most annoyingly, in spite of everything that is said or learned about the condition during the course of the story, the final outcome is so disappointing that the reader doesn't even know if it was ever pertinent to the story at all. At least fifty pages of pointless romance could be erased without any noticeable impact; some family background might be useful if Hoffman plans to feature Julia again but there is really too much personal detail even if this was the case.

I found Hoffman's writing clumsy at times; early on she explains how the prosecutors office is divided into teams and types of crime and while this did have some relevance I felt she could have explained it more succinctly. Similarly the sections about schizophrenia also seemed long-winded and overdone.

The story could have been told in a more exciting and compelling way. Since it's a legal drama David Arquette is the only suspect considered and this part of the book is all about his attempts to be acquitted on the grounds of insanity and the prosecutions case that he knew what he was doing. However there is one short chapter in which an unknown person watches unseen as a family settle down for the evening, later going into the house to kill them. But nothing more is said of this and this event in itself doesn't actually confirm or refute the final outcome of Arquette's case. It's possible of course that is a sequel is intended this might be relevant in a future story but in "Plea of Insanity" I couldn't understand why it was included.

After all these criticisms why did I finish the book? It's quite simple really; in spite of the signposting and the transparent chapter endings I really wasn't sure what the final verdict would be and I wanted to know. Given that the case rests on the contrasting opinions of expert witnesses and the instincts of the jurors the outcome isn't necessarily cut and dried. Unfortunately, I found that having avidly awaited the verdict, I found it unsatisfactory and - as you would expect from a verdict based on the instinct of the jurors rather than conclusive proof provided by forensics, for example - inconclusive.

I also stayed with "Plea of Insanity" because I liked the central character in spite of the fact that I found Hoffman's characterisation a shade too detailed. None of the characters - Julia included - are particularly original but they are at least credible - the cantankerous male judge, Julia's overbearing but well-meaning aunt and the rough at the edges homicide detectives. One character continues to rile me: the colourfully dressed, disdainful Cuban-American secretary who I can't imagine would get away with half as much as she appears to in such an important department.

Jilliane Hoffman knows her stuff; like many of her peers she too worked as an Assistant State Attorney and used her experience to write crime fiction. However, its not enough just to know the system, you have to be able to tell a good story too and I am beginning to think that in her debut "Retribution" we may well have seen her best ideas.

608 pages

To read my review of "Retribution" use the link below without the gap

http://members.dooyoo.co.uk /printed-books/retribution-jilliane-hoffman/

Summary: Disappointing legal drama that could have been a good thriller