In 1984, in the “town” of Ada, Oklahoma, Denice Haraway left her job at a convenience store/gas station with a man (they simply looked like a couple). When the people who saw them leave went inside, the clerk (Denice) was no where to be found. It appeared that the place had also been robbed. It was only later that they realized the woman they saw leaving was the clerk.

When composite sketches brought Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot to the attention of the police, they were brought in and questioned. When both confessed on camera, that pretty much sealed the deal. It wasn’t long before they recanted – said they thought their confessions (given under pressure) would easily be exposed as lies. But, despite a LOT of inconsistencies in those confessions, the two were arrested and charged.

I didn’t know the outcome of this. I may have when I heard about the book, but by the time of reading it now, I didn’t remember. I don’t want to say too much if anyone wants to read the book to see what happened and not find out things ahead of time. Even behind my spoiler tag, I haven’t specifically said, but I expect one might be able to figure it out, so you are warned!

Wow, I couldn’t believe it! Wow, I’m appalled! And to this day… Ugh! There were parts in the book that were a little more dry – sections that included things written by Tommy (he’s not very literate), and other legal details – but overall, it was interesting, particularly once they had the private investigator on the case. And suspenseful during the trials. This was originally published in 1987, but a new edition (with a new afterword) was published in 2006; the 2006 is the one I read. ( )

Very well written. Tough read in terms of enraging and heartbreaking. I read this prior to reading John Grisham's book on the same cases so perhaps it biased me but I liked this one more and read Grisham's simply to try to find any blanks and fill them in. I just found Dreams of Ada flowed better and gave a full picture for me. ( )

4320. The Dreams of Ada, by Robert Mayer (read 28 May 2007) I read this because of what John Grisham said about it. It is well-written and tells a sad story about a crime in Ada, Oklahoma--the same place which Grisham's book is based on. My interest was held thruout the book, and the account of the trial is one which holds one's attention. The appellate opinion is Ward v. State, 755 P. 2d 123 (Okla App. 1988) which says: "At the joint trial of Ward and Fontenot, the pretrial confessions of each which inculpated the other were admitted though neither defendant testified at trial. The trial judge followed the plurality opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62, 99 S.Ct. 2132, 60 L.Ed.2d 713 (1979), which held that it was not error in admitting the confession of a codefendant which incriminates the defendant even though the codefendant did not testify if the defendant's "interlocking" confession is also admitted. The Supreme Court has since repudiated this rule in Cruz v. New York, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 1714, 95 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987). Because of the violation of the defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him, Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), this Court reversed codefendant Fontenot's convictions. Fontenot, supra. Because this same error occurs in appellant's case, we hold that appellant's convictions must also be reversed. While the ban on the use of a codefendant's incriminating statements is not absolute, see Cruz, codefendant Fontenot's statement does not fall within an exception." ( )