Defending Jacob

The novel opens with a brief transcript from the grand jury. The narrator, Andy Barber, explains the context: In April 2008, he was subpoenaed to appear by Assistant District Attorney Neal Logiudice. Andy reveals that, when he was ADA, he mentored Logiudice. Now, Logiudice is questioning his former boss, trying to get his grand jury to indict someone. Andy is confident this jury will not comply: “The truth was not going to be found out, not with evidence this stale and tainted” (5). 

Nonetheless, Andy has taught Logiudice well, and the new ADA persists in aggressive questioning despite the weakness of his case. While Andy does not disclose the subject of the grand jury investigation, he reviews the details of a crime from a year before. In 2007, when Ben Rifkin was killed, Andy declined to excuse himself from the case even though his son, Jacob Barber, was a classmate of  Ben’s. Andy asserts that “there was nothing improper” (7) about his decision. He tells Logiudice that he is happy to testify because he wants the truth to be revealed. However, he confesses to the reader that that is a lie: He does not believe the court system is effective at revealing the truth.