Book 6 of the Rosato & Associates legal thriller. Previous books have helped introduce each attorney by focusing most of the book's plot around each associate. I'm enjoying this series as it makes me think of the James Patterson Women's Murder Club series that I've completed. This one involves 60 year old Italian history, Attorney Judy and one of the Tony's that is known as Pigeon Tony. I found this book a bit deeper, still the usual humor but it put me in the center of the question what actually is justice? ( )

It’s been awhile since I’ve spent time with the Rosato & Associates series. Lawyer Judy Carrier defends an elderly Italian man, Pigeon Tony, accused of murder. He admitted to killing Angelo Coluzzi because of a vendetta that started more than 50 years ago. Lots of spicy Italian drama and a new love blooms for Judy. An entertaining read with laughable moments in Lisa Scottoline’s style. ( )

I read this book a few years ago, so it's not fresh in my mind, but I still remember the characters and the basic plot after all this time and many other books in between. That's saying something for how intriguing it was, because there have been many other books that I don't remember at all! Pigeon Tony is so loveable, he's who comes to mind the most out of anything else about this book. The writing was a bit confusing to me at times, I remember that I had to read and re-read many parts because the description wasn't clear to me about what was going on. I actually disliked the writing enough at first, that I almost put the book down before even finishing the first chapter. I'm glad that I stuck with it, though, as I grew to love the main characters and the story. ( )

After re-re-reading "The Vendetta Defense," I can say, as is usual with Lisa Scottoline's books, this is great, full of memorable and usually likeable characters and plenty of plot.
Alas, she makes one gross error, double alas, one made by too, too many writers, including those propagandists and ignorami at "Law and Order": "Jury nullification" is NOT the correct term to apply to a jury's voting "not guilty" because they don't like the prosecutors and/or the prosecution case, and do like the defendant.
"News" people and, as I said, too many writers constantly mis-use the term "jury nullification," sometimes because of abysmal ignorance, and sometimes because of willful and intentional distortion.
"Jury nullification" is voting because the jury members oppose a law.
For example, a defendant accused of the heinous crime of selling, or even just growing, marijuana might be voted "not guilty" because the jurors recognize the immorality and/or stupidity of The Insane War on Some Drugs.
Jury Nullification is, in truth, part of the American tradition, part of our heritage.
It goes back to the John Peter Zenger trial.
And even further back to very courageous jurors in England defying the persecutorial government and even risking their own lives to try to prevent a legal wrong.
Fully Informed Jury Association is available to give us the facts. It's headquartered in Montana, but accessible via the Internet. Too bad that so many people, even lawyers and judges, don't know the truth, the history, and even the law: There are states, though not very many, that require judges to inform jurors that they, those jurors, are judges not only of the facts of a case, but of the law.
THAT, gentle reader, is "Jury Nullification."
If you ever get conscripted for a jury, don't let a judge or prosecutor tell you any different. That judge or prosecutor might not be lying: He might actually believe his nonsense. But he is still wrong. ( )

I have to give it credit for being a very interesting story but parts of it were just boring and unrealistic and I sometimes found myself getting lost in the sheer number of characters. The thing that I disliked the most was that it went quickly from being a mystery to being mainly a romance. I had to give it a 3 star rating because it was well written and I generally like this author...and...you guessed it... it fit a challenge very well. ( )