"Da Vinci" Case Closed

In a trial overflowing with authors and books, it's a judge who's getting the last word.

Closing arguments wrapped Monday in London in the extremely high-profile case brought by two historians who claim Dan Brown plagiarized parts of The Da Vinci Code from their previously published work.

While London High Court Justice Peter Smith is not expected to rule until next month, he did at times seem more skeptical over arguments put forth by the allegedly wronged authors.

Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, two of the three authors of the 1982 nonfiction tome The Holy Blood, and the Holy Grail (known as Holy Blood, Holy Grail in the U.S.), claim Brown based the "architecture" of his novel--namely the so-called "bloodline" theory alleging Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child and that their bloodline continues in France--on their book, alleging he not only stole their ideas, but lied about doing so.

Baigent and Leigh are technically not suing Brown but his publisher, Random House--which, in a twist, is also their publisher. If successful, the two authors will not only get a potentially huge cut of profits from the mega-selling Code, but they could block further publishing of the book and stop the release of the highly anticipated big-screen adaptation starring Tom Hanks and Ian McKellen, which is scheduled for release May 19. Justice Smith will give his verdict on the case before the current court term ends Apr. 13.

In his closing arguments, Leigh and Baigent's lawyer, Jonathan Rayner James, argued that Brown had "been hiding the truth" about when he and his wife, Blythe Brown, who admittedly does most of her husband's research, first consulted The Holy Blood, and The Holy Grail. The authors argue Brown read it before starting to write his blockbuster novel; Brown says it was only after he began writing that he was tipped off to Holy Blood's existence.

Smith questioned Baigent and Leigh's argument, however, saying it was unlikely that Brown would copy so much of their book without credit only to include several direct mentions of the work in his final text in addition to creating a major character in homage to the duo--"Leigh Teabing," whose name is an anagram of the litigious authors' names.

"If he's trying to hide the fact that he's using HBHG in the synopsis, what's the point of shouting it out from the rooftops in the book?" the judge asked.

James trudged on, arguing that Brown had been "uncooperative" throughout the trial and that his evidence should be reviewed with "deep suspicion."

The lawyer took issue with the fact that while Brown admitted it was his wife who was responsible for most of his novel's research, she never materialized on the stand.

"He had almost no recollection of matters that related to issues of timing," James said. "He would struggle to recall a year, was rarely able to recall a month. His general attitude in cross-examination was uncooperative."

As for Blythe Brown's lack of testimony, James said it was only she who could fully answer questions about when Brown acquired his client's book, and the fact that she never appeared in court was frankly, per James, suspicious.

"The evidence of Blythe Brown was of fundamental importance to this case," he said in court. "It was crucial in revealing the dependency on HBHG and the extent to which she relied on it. Perhaps that is why she was not produced."

"The inference to be drawn is that Blythe Brown's testimony would not support Dan Brown's evidence," James said.

For his part, Brown claimed the only reason his wife did not testify was because she disliked the spotlight, not because she had anything to hide. (Brown himself is notoriously media-shy, and his appearance at the three-week trial caused a stir.)

This isn't the Brown's first time battled plagiarism charges. And based on his track record, he should be heartened.

Last August, the author won a separate court ruling in the U.S. against Lewis Perdue, who claimed Brown's bestseller lifted elements from two of his books, Daughter of God and The Da Vinci Legacy.