October 10, 2024 • 26 mins
In 1995, she was a household name when she served as lead prosecutor during O.J. Simpson's Los Angeles trial. Today, Amy and T.J. are turning the tables asking her the hard hitting crime questions you want to know.
Marcia Clark reveals why Diddy will have an uphill battle in court, her honest thoughts on O.J. Simpson's death and how working on one of the most famous trials has affected her mental health.
Listen to Marcia Clark's new podcast "Informants: Lawyer X", available now exclusively on Wondery+
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome everyone to the Amy and TJ Podcast. And I
think by now, if you all have been listening, you're
very well aware of our love of true crime.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
How would you describe our passion for the genre.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
It's become an obsession. We're storytellers by trade. We are storytellers,
and so many of these are stories that I mean, yes,
they end up ending tragically, but there's just sometimes some
of them are so good in how they tell these stories.
So we go through our so vengeance snapped, chilling relationships,
(00:36):
worst roommate ever, There's just we could keep going and going.
The problem is now we don't have a lot of
room in our true crime slate for more. But now
we got to add because we do, they're giving us
another show we got to keep up with.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Yeah, we have like a Murder in the Morning, Rundown,
Most Warnings, and we are going to be adding a show,
a particular show. It's a podcast to the list of
our obsession with true crime. And the woman who is
front and center, well, let's say you might know her,
you might have heard of her.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
She's probably one of the.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
World's most famous prosecutors, perhaps the world's most famous prosecutor.
She is also just has has been wearing a lot
of different hats over the.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Past few years.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
She is a journalist, she is a television producer, she's
a television host. Now, as we mentioned, she's a podcast host.
I think we should go ahead and introduce the woman
we are talking about, the one and only Marcia Clark Marshad.
Thank you so much for coming on the podcast, and
congratulations on all the shows and successes you've had over
(01:40):
the years. They've been plentiful.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Thank you so much. It's a pleasure to be here. Guys.
Thanks for having me well Marcia.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
I said to her earlier today we were getting ready,
I said, let's really try to find a way has
she ever been? Will she ever be introduced without Ojay's
name being in the introduction? And there's so much you
have done, and I think there's so much a part
of your life then that people got to see, certainly
(02:07):
with the television show, but I think we miss sometimes
that you're a mom, you're an educator in a lot
of ways. Now you're a television correspondent in a lot
of ways. So there's just so much more to you.
You put into terms how full your life has been
post being a prosecutor.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
That's a really so thank you so much, Number one
for the effort to talk about something else besides him.
It's a refreshing change, and I really appreciate it. After that,
I turned to writing, and I've written nine novels, nine
crime fiction novels, a collaborat, of course, on the book
(02:47):
about the trial. I just wrote a true crime non
fiction based on the story of Barbara Graant, who was
This was a story in the fifties and she was
She wound up being one of the four women who
were put to death in California for a murder she
did not commit. So that book will be coming out
(03:07):
in December. And last, but certainly not least, this podcast.
It's called Informants Lawyer X. And it was the craziest
story and the wildest ride I could have possibly imagine.
It blew me away. And I've seen thousands. I mean,
I'm still practicing criminal laws, so I can't tell you that. Literally,
(03:28):
I've handled thousands of cases and some are really wild.
This took the cake running away. Started with a rumor
that had this very high powered criminal lawyer who was
handling all of the most notorious drug lords and killers
was sleeping with a cop that turned out to be
the very least of the story. That was nothing compared
(03:48):
to the twists and turns. It was unbelievable. She wound
up becoming the most celebrated informant the police ever had
while representing these notorious killers, and then wound up helping
the killers with the information she got from the police.
She was a puppet mastery between this triangle that was ginormous,
wound up implicated in a double murdered homicide that was
(04:09):
execution style of yet another informant. I you know, it
bottles the mind. I mean, even when I was narrating it,
having written the episodes, co written the episodes with two
of the writers on the show. Honestly, I kept saying,
I can't believe I'm saying this. I can't believe I'm
telling you guys this story.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
And I knew the story, and I was saying that
so and that speaks volumes for someone who has spent
their entire lives in some former fashion dealing with crime
and these powerful trials, and certainly those of us who
have reported on a lot of these different trials and
murders and mysteries. Everyone I think can agree that truth
(04:52):
is almost always stranger than fiction. So these are fascinating,
fascinating stories. But what do you think it is about
true crime that has so much many people like us?
And I read that you two were and are a
true crime junkie. What is it about these stories that
keeps us coming back and wanting more?
Speaker 2 (05:08):
You know, that's a really great question. I have grappled
with it myself, because yeah, I'm a true crime junkie
just like you guys, so and I have been since
I was a child. I was I was like solving
that case when there was no case. When I was
six years old, there was an abandoned house at the
end of the street, and I decided a murder must
have taken place there. I mean it must have so,
and I found blood drops on the sidewalk. I mean, yeah,
(05:32):
I invented evidence. The surprising thing was I got all
my friends to go along with this and incredible story
that was no story, you know, looking for clues. I've
then to crack this case wide open, and I didn't,
but I thought I did. So it's been It's like
an abiding thing, lifelong thing. I think we're all curious people.
(05:54):
I think the true crime community, of which I am
a proud member. Our curt These are curious people. We
are curious. We want to solve riddle to want to
solve puzzles. We want answers to things. We want explanations
for things more than most I mean everybody does, but we,
I think, really want to. And it's like I can't
walk into a room. I can't see a box sitting
(06:15):
on a table in a room without going over to
open it. I mean, friends have like laughed, Oh, she's
gonna she's right there, and I can't help it. I
don't mean to be this person. It's convulsive. So I
think that's I think that's part of it. The other
part of it is Mark Twain said it very well.
A paraphrase him. I'm going to get it wrong, I
know I will. But the idea of it is truth
(06:37):
has to deal with possibility. I mean fiction, See, I
think it's fiction has to deal with possibilities. Truth does not,
And that to me is like one of the most
abiding things about these stories is they're so crazy that
you wouldn't believe them unless they were true. You wouldn't
even want to buy them as fiction. So I mean,
(06:57):
I think that's that's the other part of it is
that it's a wild story that happens to be true.
Therefore it's about all of us. So I think that's
part of it too, you know. And if you always
get into the motivations, who are these people? Why do
they do what they do? Especially when it comes to murder? Right,
the ultimate crime? Why we've been all in frustrating situations
(07:19):
in our lives. People have pissed us off, Right, we
didn't kill them?
Speaker 1 (07:23):
Right?
Speaker 2 (07:24):
What makes people take that ultimate step? The answers are
so many and so varied, and sometimes they're banal and silly,
and sometimes they're profound and really moving. There's so many answers.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
Marsha, what do you think of how I mean, certainly
you were involved with the biggest trial most of us
will ever see. But the way we handle celebrities and
trials these days, in terms of media, it seems like
there are more places for I mean, what's what social media,
and there's TMD and there are things like that around,
(08:00):
but beyond just I guess so many options out there.
What is it we do when we see a p
ditty story?
Speaker 2 (08:06):
What is it?
Speaker 3 (08:07):
What troubled you about the way the media attacks some
of these stories.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
I worry when it comes to celebrity cases. I worry
about too much interest paid to the silacious and the prurient,
and not enough attention paid to truth. I worry that
stories get sold because they'll sell, you know, clickbait, whether
it's true or not. And I think there's there's a
(08:33):
temptation to still to want that scoop if you will.
I mean, that's an old term, but you know what
I'm talking about, And everybody wants to be first out
there with the story when it's celebrity because this is
going to be big news. I mean, and it is
big news, right. You know the person's name, You've seen
them on TV. You guys, you know I'm talking about.
You're famous. And so people have even a greater desire,
(08:57):
a greater curiosity, and they in order to feed that curiosity,
there's a desire to get out there first, grab it
and not verify, not corroborate, you know, don't bother with
and don't bother with context either. I want they there's
a desire to want to grab the most explosive headline possible.
And that's what worries me because you know, you want
the truth and you want context. You want people to
(09:20):
put this in in its place. You know. I think
Ben Dreyfus actually has a substack. It's called Calm Down,
and I think words it's a very good title about
Let's remember to consider the nuance, consider all of context,
consider what the situation is, and put it in its
(09:40):
place in perspective. Let's not just blow it up and
make it big because these people are famous, and I
worry that all of that gets forgotten. Yeah, the worry
is a real concern.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
I mean, I think we know, having been on both
sides of that equation in the media and then being
being people who also yes, we're clickbait, So that absolutely
is true. And I'm curious, as TJ pointed out, you
(10:10):
were the prosecutor in the Trial of the Century because
of the celebrity of O. J.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Simpson.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
How much more difficult is it as a prosecutor to
prosecute a celebrity.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
It is way more difficult. Of course, it does depend
on the celebrity the perception. For example, if mister Simpson
was as this affable, genial, wonderful guy, phenomenal athlete, you know,
and people saw him in context like Naked Gun and
the Hurts commercials that made him much more than even
(10:43):
just a sports star and saying just ae sports star.
You know, people love sports figures and especially Steller ones
like him who achieved the unachievable. So you're battling that
persona even though it's not who the person is. So
whoever the celebrity, if it is the positive persona, then
you're going to be dealing with a perception that has
(11:05):
been fixed and they can't square that circle. They can't
look at that celebrity and say that matches the crime. No,
it can't be. Can't be. So even if it were
not a million other things in the wake of the
Rodney King riots and all the other things that came
in to complicate it, far far more exponentially, one hundred
(11:26):
thousand times more, you would have that aspect of celebrity
where you're overcoming a perception that may have nothing to
really do with the person, certainly not the situation, and
it becomes harder for people to imagine than doing what
they're accused of doing. Conversely, the worry is that if
somebody is famous and yet not belooked, you worry that
(11:47):
the jury's going to punish them for that and not
look at the evidence and be too forgiving of the prosecution,
and that's a worry too, and not hold the prosecution,
speak to the fire and demand proof beyond a reasonable
doubt because you want to thump this person. So you know,
celebrity can skew things either way, and that's it. That's
a it's a problem, no question.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
How do you think social media would have made that
trial different?
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Do you know how many times I thought, thank god
there was no Twitter?
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Oh man.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
All we had in the office at that time was
a giant fax machine, you know, huge clunking things, and
they blew it up. It was blowing up every day.
It fell apart every day because people were bounding us
with facts. Is about do this? Think of that? What
about this? Give you craziness? So all I can say
is God bless that there was no social media during
(12:49):
that trial. It would have been a nightmare. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
I cannot even get my head around what that would
have been like. It was already a media circus as
it was what happened. I know you are obviously you
still practice law, as you point out, but your life
completely pivoted after that verdict and after that trial. And
I'm curious if you look back now and say it
all happened the way it was supposed to, because you
(13:13):
probably wouldn't have made the decisions you made with your
career in your life had you had a different verdict.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
That's really true. That is very, very true. And this
is one of those things where I had a plan
and you know what they say, man plans and God laughs. Well, same.
So my plan was to be a prosecutor forever and
ever and ever and let them carry me out of
the courtroom in a pine box. Did not happen that way.
And I think, you know, after the trial, I couldn't
(13:40):
face the idea for reading one second of going back
into the courtroom. It was so horrible. The experience was traumatic,
beyond traumatic, and it shredded my feeling, my sense of belief,
my belief and my faith in the justice system, and
so many things. So I left and was kind of reddless.
(14:03):
You know, I did have to go ahead and write
the book, and I thought, I want to write this
book because I want to make sure while it's fresh,
that I remember to put everything in it so that
people will know then what well O our opportunities came in,
you know, for hosting or commenting, for writing, and yeah,
my life took a completely different turn, and it was
(14:26):
necessary to kind of go with the flow and let
things happen the way they did because I knew what
I couldn't do, so I had to find out what
I could do, and so it led to a lot
of reinvention, which I think you know in hindsight that
there was no other choice.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
And if you will allow me the word closure, was it?
And you can put it in different terms if you want,
But was there some point you talked about just how
much that trial did to you and beat you down?
But coming out of that and getting healthy again, how long?
And maybe it is a life long process for you,
But was there ever a point that you got some
kind of closure or turning up the page you felt
(15:07):
not really?
Speaker 2 (15:08):
Not really, you know? Yeah, I mean I think that
the wound healed to a point as much as it's
going to the sadness over to innocent people being brutally
murdered that way, that's that's really hard. I don't expect
to get over that, not completely, I don't. I don't
(15:29):
think that it's as fresh as it was, thank goodness.
But you know that's not going to go away. It's
just it can't any any any kind of injustice, I
think kind of I can't let go of that. And
it doesn't matter whether it's injustice because someone was wrongly
convicted or wrongly acquitted. For me, it's the same thing.
(15:50):
You know, justice wasn't served. That's the most important thing
to me. Truth, justice was it served. And so in
some respects, I think there's no getting over something like that.
If if that makes sense, you do get past it
to a certain degree, and you have to.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
You know, you said, you said, and that all makes sense.
By the way, Marcia, you said when you were talking
earlier that you absolutely questioned the validity of our justice system.
Where do you stand on that?
Speaker 2 (16:23):
Now? I think we're getting better, to be honest with you.
It's it's interesting now. I live in California, so we've
recently gone through reforms in our laws and particularly reliability
in terms of felony murder. That is a good adjustment,
which we knew this was coming. It's really funny you
should mention this. I was thinking about it. The other day.
(16:45):
We enacted what was called the three strikes law. These
it was meant to punish more severely recidibous, that is,
career criminals who repeat offenders. Good idea, that's fine, you
certainly do want to do that, But it was also
an effort to strip away discretion from the judges and
to enforce certain laws to a point and ensure that
(17:08):
at least this amount of time will be required to
be imposed as a sentence in kind of cases. But
the problem, of course with that is that once you
strip away discretion, then you lose the ability to place
a defendant context, a defendant who has maybe not been
the prime mover in a case, who's a fringe player,
who's the getaway driver, that sort of thing, and you
(17:30):
lump everybody into the same boat. That's not good either.
So we keep bouncing between too much discretion not enough discretion.
We're trying to get it right, and I think the
effort is an important one, but I think it's necessary
to get into what really is what each defendant did.
The punishment must fit the crime. It can't just be
(17:51):
a one size fits all, And that's a really important
thing because motivation does matter. It matters what a defendant
intended to do, It matters how things went out, So
I mean, I'm all for context and nuance. And by
the way, that's kind of what got me so intrigued
by Lawyer X was why would a woman so at
the top of her game, so celebrated, so successful, Why
(18:15):
would she now put herself in so much jeopardy. She's
still inviting because she's in jeopardy from the clients that
she betrayed, and she's in jeopardy because of the cops
whose cases are now getting overturned left and right, because
of the violation of the conflicts, ethical conflicts as well
as legal errors that occurred as a result of what
she did. Why would someone do this? Why would you
(18:38):
want to destroy your career, your life this way? That
kind of stuff really matters, And you know, and I,
by the way, that comes full circle to your question
about what intrigues us about true crime? The why of
it all? I think is the ultimate question that gets
us going. And I really can't come to a final
conclusion about why Lawyer X did what she did. I'm
(18:58):
really hoping I get to talk to some of the
people who hear the podcast and see what they think
is the why of it all.
Speaker 3 (19:12):
Marsha listening to you talk with so much passion about
certainly the case on lawyer adicts, but also just the
justice system. You sound like someone who would be a
benefit to us all if you were in the justice system.
Have you thought about I know you don't want to
go back into a courtroom, but have you thought about
any other way to serve even that's running for office
of some kind? Has that crossed your mind?
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Never? Never come on? I mean, should let me tell
you how this goes? Because I can't lie. I don't lie.
I might not say something. You know, I might withhold
what I think at a given time to try and
not just spare people's feelings, but I would be direct.
So you know, somebody asked, what do you think of
(19:55):
this policy? What do you think of this law? I
won't tell them, And you know what that means. The
shortest campaign you ever saw.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Can I say, though you have been completely vetted because
you went through the Ringer. I mean, you know, just
that public scrutiny that you had. I mean, I don't
know if if we had seen that really before, because
you were a pioneer.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
In a lot of ways.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
To see a woman in charge of this massive legal team,
and how many other women. Did we even see at
that point in our lives in positions of power, where
you would have and your looks, what you were wearing,
your perm your everything, What was your mental health like that?
Because really, I don't know that you had anyone to
(20:41):
turn to to say what should I do?
Speaker 2 (20:43):
How can I stop this? You know what? I did
turn to our media people in the DA's office, but
they didn't know either because this had never happened before.
What do you do? I mean, this is something that
it's really hard to imagine this today in today's world
with social media, Twitter, etc. Excuse me x, Instagram, you know,
(21:04):
the whole line yards. We've lived with this now for
so many years that it's hard to imagine what life
was like back then. But back in ninety four when
I got the case, a high profile case meant maybe
they'll spell my name right, Probably they won't even mention
my name. That's it. Picture of me, no way, only
if I'm in the background, because they're taking a picture
(21:25):
of the defend and I happen to be standing over there.
So there's no there's no way to account for what happened.
It was It wasn't supposed to be like that and
a high profile case. Back then, if they the media
showed up at the time of the arraignment, that's all
you would see of them. They disappear and they'd maybe
come back in time for the verdict, maybe not. They
just report on it without having been in the court room.
(21:48):
Things changed when Simpson happened, and suddenly we had a
twenty four news hour cycle and cable stations that could
broadcast around the country constantly. And then you know, we
had the cameras in the courtroom, which we shouldn't have
had to the degree we did. That was a mistake.
And you know, this is one of those things you
(22:08):
need a judge who really knows how to manage things.
In other words, let the cameras in when the jurors there,
jury is there, and keep the cameras out when the
jury is not there. That's the only way you can
be sure that stuff that is not supposed to be
presented to the jury is not presented to the world.
They didn't do that. I mean, print reporters will always
be allowed in. But if you don't control the video,
(22:31):
because that's what people are most likely to see and
care about, then you have lost control of the whole
nine yards. So it was crazy because there was no
there was no experience of this. There was no This
was an experiment of one at the time who knew
what to do about this. There was no stopping it.
So no, there was no way, no one to talk
to because no one knew how to anticipate what this
(22:54):
was going to be.
Speaker 3 (22:56):
That's a good point. This was new to everybody. Seems
like we have these celebrity trials all the time now
and one with cameras, but at the time, you all
were a first for us. I do have to ask
because we had we saw the news several months ago
on the passing the death of OJ Simpson and saw
a statement you put out simply saying my condolences to
the family of OJ Simpson. Did you have more you
wanted to say and have wanted to say? And just
(23:18):
what was your reaction in that moment when you heard
that he had passed?
Speaker 2 (23:21):
Was my reaction? I mean, I wasn't kidding TJ when
I said I can't be a politician. I said exactly
what I thought. You know, his family doesn't deserve any
of this. His family loved him, I'm sure, and felt
the lost keenly. I didn't know at the time he
had been ill, so there it was probably not as
big a shock to them, but still probably fairly painful.
(23:45):
And so that's all I thought was, I send my
condolences to the family.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
You tell me what you'd always tell us what you think.
Did you feel anything?
Speaker 2 (23:54):
That's what I felt, sorry for the family, I mean,
you know what I mean that that was it. There
was nothing. I I said exactly what I think of
mister Simpson many times and on camera, and so there's
nothing to add. How much of.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
What you went through and experience with that trial fuels
what you do now?
Speaker 2 (24:15):
You said, you know you love the truth searching for
the truth.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Does the outcome that happened then back then fuel your
passion today?
Speaker 2 (24:25):
I think it's unchanged. I think the passion I had
for truth and justice back then is the same as
I have now. I had it then, have it now?
Speaker 1 (24:34):
You know?
Speaker 2 (24:35):
It's always mattered to me. I don't think that's any different.
But I found different outlets for it, and some are
more fun than others. But I when I first published
my first crime fiction book, Publishers Weekly put out the
banner saying, Clark turns to fiction to control the outcome.
(24:57):
I thought that was right on yeah, truth. But also
I'm handling criminal appeals for the indigen These are court
appointed cases. After someone in California, I think this is
throughout the country, it gets convicted of a felony, they're
entitled to an appeal, a direct appeal to the Court
of Appeals by the time they've gone through a trial,
if they even had money at that time, which many don't,
(25:20):
but even if they did, they're tapped out by the
time it's time for an appeal, and so the Court
of Appeal will point lawyers to represent them. And this
is all in writing. This is all research and writing.
We're error catchers, is what we are, and I'm doing
that as well, so I am still able to seek
the truth and seek justice, you know, in the field
(25:42):
of criminal law in a serious way, not just with
crime fiction. But that's fun too.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
It's so impressive to hear all that you've done and
all that you've accomplished and all that you're still doing,
and it's just remarkable. And I have to say, you know,
you think you know someone, but that when you sit
down and you talk with them, this is it's been such.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
A pleasure you.
Speaker 1 (26:01):
We love real people and real people who've been through
real ship and uh and are still kicking ass. And
that's exactly what you're doing, so we really it's it's
inspiring to see you and to hear you, and I
want you to remind everyone if you wouldn't mind, where
they can catch this podcast and just let them know
how they can find it.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
You can watch Informants Lawyer X on Apple, Spotify Where
and Wondery Plus. If you subscribe to one Wondery Plus
you'll get it ad free, which is cool, and also
some extras as well, So anywhere you find your podcast,
especially Wondering Plus. Thank you so much, guys, it's been
a real pleasure.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
Marcia, Thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
Take care
Welcome everyone to the Amy and TJ Podcast. And I
think by now, if you all have been listening, you're
very well aware of our love of true crime.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
How would you describe our passion for the genre.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
It's become an obsession. We're storytellers by trade. We are storytellers,
and so many of these are stories that I mean, yes,
they end up ending tragically, but there's just sometimes some
of them are so good in how they tell these stories.
So we go through our so vengeance snapped, chilling relationships,
(00:36):
worst roommate ever, There's just we could keep going and going.
The problem is now we don't have a lot of
room in our true crime slate for more. But now
we got to add because we do, they're giving us
another show we got to keep up with.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Yeah, we have like a Murder in the Morning, Rundown,
Most Warnings, and we are going to be adding a show,
a particular show. It's a podcast to the list of
our obsession with true crime. And the woman who is
front and center, well, let's say you might know her,
you might have heard of her.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
She's probably one of the.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
World's most famous prosecutors, perhaps the world's most famous prosecutor.
She is also just has has been wearing a lot
of different hats over the.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Past few years.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
She is a journalist, she is a television producer, she's
a television host. Now, as we mentioned, she's a podcast host.
I think we should go ahead and introduce the woman
we are talking about, the one and only Marcia Clark Marshad.
Thank you so much for coming on the podcast, and
congratulations on all the shows and successes you've had over
(01:40):
the years. They've been plentiful.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Thank you so much. It's a pleasure to be here. Guys.
Thanks for having me well Marcia.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
I said to her earlier today we were getting ready,
I said, let's really try to find a way has
she ever been? Will she ever be introduced without Ojay's
name being in the introduction? And there's so much you
have done, and I think there's so much a part
of your life then that people got to see, certainly
(02:07):
with the television show, but I think we miss sometimes
that you're a mom, you're an educator in a lot
of ways. Now you're a television correspondent in a lot
of ways. So there's just so much more to you.
You put into terms how full your life has been
post being a prosecutor.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
That's a really so thank you so much, Number one
for the effort to talk about something else besides him.
It's a refreshing change, and I really appreciate it. After that,
I turned to writing, and I've written nine novels, nine
crime fiction novels, a collaborat, of course, on the book
(02:47):
about the trial. I just wrote a true crime non
fiction based on the story of Barbara Graant, who was
This was a story in the fifties and she was
She wound up being one of the four women who
were put to death in California for a murder she
did not commit. So that book will be coming out
(03:07):
in December. And last, but certainly not least, this podcast.
It's called Informants Lawyer X. And it was the craziest
story and the wildest ride I could have possibly imagine.
It blew me away. And I've seen thousands. I mean,
I'm still practicing criminal laws, so I can't tell you that. Literally,
(03:28):
I've handled thousands of cases and some are really wild.
This took the cake running away. Started with a rumor
that had this very high powered criminal lawyer who was
handling all of the most notorious drug lords and killers
was sleeping with a cop that turned out to be
the very least of the story. That was nothing compared
(03:48):
to the twists and turns. It was unbelievable. She wound
up becoming the most celebrated informant the police ever had
while representing these notorious killers, and then wound up helping
the killers with the information she got from the police.
She was a puppet mastery between this triangle that was ginormous,
wound up implicated in a double murdered homicide that was
(04:09):
execution style of yet another informant. I you know, it
bottles the mind. I mean, even when I was narrating it,
having written the episodes, co written the episodes with two
of the writers on the show. Honestly, I kept saying,
I can't believe I'm saying this. I can't believe I'm
telling you guys this story.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
And I knew the story, and I was saying that
so and that speaks volumes for someone who has spent
their entire lives in some former fashion dealing with crime
and these powerful trials, and certainly those of us who
have reported on a lot of these different trials and
murders and mysteries. Everyone I think can agree that truth
(04:52):
is almost always stranger than fiction. So these are fascinating,
fascinating stories. But what do you think it is about
true crime that has so much many people like us?
And I read that you two were and are a
true crime junkie. What is it about these stories that
keeps us coming back and wanting more?
Speaker 2 (05:08):
You know, that's a really great question. I have grappled
with it myself, because yeah, I'm a true crime junkie
just like you guys, so and I have been since
I was a child. I was I was like solving
that case when there was no case. When I was
six years old, there was an abandoned house at the
end of the street, and I decided a murder must
have taken place there. I mean it must have so,
and I found blood drops on the sidewalk. I mean, yeah,
(05:32):
I invented evidence. The surprising thing was I got all
my friends to go along with this and incredible story
that was no story, you know, looking for clues. I've
then to crack this case wide open, and I didn't,
but I thought I did. So it's been It's like
an abiding thing, lifelong thing. I think we're all curious people.
(05:54):
I think the true crime community, of which I am
a proud member. Our curt These are curious people. We
are curious. We want to solve riddle to want to
solve puzzles. We want answers to things. We want explanations
for things more than most I mean everybody does, but we,
I think, really want to. And it's like I can't
walk into a room. I can't see a box sitting
(06:15):
on a table in a room without going over to
open it. I mean, friends have like laughed, Oh, she's
gonna she's right there, and I can't help it. I
don't mean to be this person. It's convulsive. So I
think that's I think that's part of it. The other
part of it is Mark Twain said it very well.
A paraphrase him. I'm going to get it wrong, I
know I will. But the idea of it is truth
(06:37):
has to deal with possibility. I mean fiction, See, I
think it's fiction has to deal with possibilities. Truth does not,
And that to me is like one of the most
abiding things about these stories is they're so crazy that
you wouldn't believe them unless they were true. You wouldn't
even want to buy them as fiction. So I mean,
(06:57):
I think that's that's the other part of it is
that it's a wild story that happens to be true.
Therefore it's about all of us. So I think that's
part of it too, you know. And if you always
get into the motivations, who are these people? Why do
they do what they do? Especially when it comes to murder? Right,
the ultimate crime? Why we've been all in frustrating situations
(07:19):
in our lives. People have pissed us off, Right, we
didn't kill them?
Speaker 1 (07:23):
Right?
Speaker 2 (07:24):
What makes people take that ultimate step? The answers are
so many and so varied, and sometimes they're banal and silly,
and sometimes they're profound and really moving. There's so many answers.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
Marsha, what do you think of how I mean, certainly
you were involved with the biggest trial most of us
will ever see. But the way we handle celebrities and
trials these days, in terms of media, it seems like
there are more places for I mean, what's what social media,
and there's TMD and there are things like that around,
(08:00):
but beyond just I guess so many options out there.
What is it we do when we see a p
ditty story?
Speaker 2 (08:06):
What is it?
Speaker 3 (08:07):
What troubled you about the way the media attacks some
of these stories.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
I worry when it comes to celebrity cases. I worry
about too much interest paid to the silacious and the prurient,
and not enough attention paid to truth. I worry that
stories get sold because they'll sell, you know, clickbait, whether
it's true or not. And I think there's there's a
(08:33):
temptation to still to want that scoop if you will.
I mean, that's an old term, but you know what
I'm talking about, And everybody wants to be first out
there with the story when it's celebrity because this is
going to be big news. I mean, and it is
big news, right. You know the person's name, You've seen
them on TV. You guys, you know I'm talking about.
You're famous. And so people have even a greater desire,
(08:57):
a greater curiosity, and they in order to feed that curiosity,
there's a desire to get out there first, grab it
and not verify, not corroborate, you know, don't bother with
and don't bother with context either. I want they there's
a desire to want to grab the most explosive headline possible.
And that's what worries me because you know, you want
the truth and you want context. You want people to
(09:20):
put this in in its place. You know. I think
Ben Dreyfus actually has a substack. It's called Calm Down,
and I think words it's a very good title about
Let's remember to consider the nuance, consider all of context,
consider what the situation is, and put it in its
(09:40):
place in perspective. Let's not just blow it up and
make it big because these people are famous, and I
worry that all of that gets forgotten. Yeah, the worry
is a real concern.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
I mean, I think we know, having been on both
sides of that equation in the media and then being
being people who also yes, we're clickbait, So that absolutely
is true. And I'm curious, as TJ pointed out, you
(10:10):
were the prosecutor in the Trial of the Century because
of the celebrity of O. J.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Simpson.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
How much more difficult is it as a prosecutor to
prosecute a celebrity.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
It is way more difficult. Of course, it does depend
on the celebrity the perception. For example, if mister Simpson
was as this affable, genial, wonderful guy, phenomenal athlete, you know,
and people saw him in context like Naked Gun and
the Hurts commercials that made him much more than even
(10:43):
just a sports star and saying just ae sports star.
You know, people love sports figures and especially Steller ones
like him who achieved the unachievable. So you're battling that
persona even though it's not who the person is. So
whoever the celebrity, if it is the positive persona, then
you're going to be dealing with a perception that has
(11:05):
been fixed and they can't square that circle. They can't
look at that celebrity and say that matches the crime. No,
it can't be. Can't be. So even if it were
not a million other things in the wake of the
Rodney King riots and all the other things that came
in to complicate it, far far more exponentially, one hundred
(11:26):
thousand times more, you would have that aspect of celebrity
where you're overcoming a perception that may have nothing to
really do with the person, certainly not the situation, and
it becomes harder for people to imagine than doing what
they're accused of doing. Conversely, the worry is that if
somebody is famous and yet not belooked, you worry that
(11:47):
the jury's going to punish them for that and not
look at the evidence and be too forgiving of the prosecution,
and that's a worry too, and not hold the prosecution,
speak to the fire and demand proof beyond a reasonable
doubt because you want to thump this person. So you know,
celebrity can skew things either way, and that's it. That's
a it's a problem, no question.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
How do you think social media would have made that
trial different?
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Do you know how many times I thought, thank god
there was no Twitter?
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Oh man.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
All we had in the office at that time was
a giant fax machine, you know, huge clunking things, and
they blew it up. It was blowing up every day.
It fell apart every day because people were bounding us
with facts. Is about do this? Think of that? What
about this? Give you craziness? So all I can say
is God bless that there was no social media during
(12:49):
that trial. It would have been a nightmare. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
I cannot even get my head around what that would
have been like. It was already a media circus as
it was what happened. I know you are obviously you
still practice law, as you point out, but your life
completely pivoted after that verdict and after that trial. And
I'm curious if you look back now and say it
all happened the way it was supposed to, because you
(13:13):
probably wouldn't have made the decisions you made with your
career in your life had you had a different verdict.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
That's really true. That is very, very true. And this
is one of those things where I had a plan
and you know what they say, man plans and God laughs. Well, same.
So my plan was to be a prosecutor forever and
ever and ever and let them carry me out of
the courtroom in a pine box. Did not happen that way.
And I think, you know, after the trial, I couldn't
(13:40):
face the idea for reading one second of going back
into the courtroom. It was so horrible. The experience was traumatic,
beyond traumatic, and it shredded my feeling, my sense of belief,
my belief and my faith in the justice system, and
so many things. So I left and was kind of reddless.
(14:03):
You know, I did have to go ahead and write
the book, and I thought, I want to write this
book because I want to make sure while it's fresh,
that I remember to put everything in it so that
people will know then what well O our opportunities came in,
you know, for hosting or commenting, for writing, and yeah,
my life took a completely different turn, and it was
(14:26):
necessary to kind of go with the flow and let
things happen the way they did because I knew what
I couldn't do, so I had to find out what
I could do, and so it led to a lot
of reinvention, which I think you know in hindsight that
there was no other choice.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
And if you will allow me the word closure, was it?
And you can put it in different terms if you want,
But was there some point you talked about just how
much that trial did to you and beat you down?
But coming out of that and getting healthy again, how long?
And maybe it is a life long process for you,
But was there ever a point that you got some
kind of closure or turning up the page you felt
(15:07):
not really?
Speaker 2 (15:08):
Not really, you know? Yeah, I mean I think that
the wound healed to a point as much as it's
going to the sadness over to innocent people being brutally
murdered that way, that's that's really hard. I don't expect
to get over that, not completely, I don't. I don't
(15:29):
think that it's as fresh as it was, thank goodness.
But you know that's not going to go away. It's
just it can't any any any kind of injustice, I
think kind of I can't let go of that. And
it doesn't matter whether it's injustice because someone was wrongly
convicted or wrongly acquitted. For me, it's the same thing.
(15:50):
You know, justice wasn't served. That's the most important thing
to me. Truth, justice was it served. And so in
some respects, I think there's no getting over something like that.
If if that makes sense, you do get past it
to a certain degree, and you have to.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
You know, you said, you said, and that all makes sense.
By the way, Marcia, you said when you were talking
earlier that you absolutely questioned the validity of our justice system.
Where do you stand on that?
Speaker 2 (16:23):
Now? I think we're getting better, to be honest with you.
It's it's interesting now. I live in California, so we've
recently gone through reforms in our laws and particularly reliability
in terms of felony murder. That is a good adjustment,
which we knew this was coming. It's really funny you
should mention this. I was thinking about it. The other day.
(16:45):
We enacted what was called the three strikes law. These
it was meant to punish more severely recidibous, that is,
career criminals who repeat offenders. Good idea, that's fine, you
certainly do want to do that, But it was also
an effort to strip away discretion from the judges and
to enforce certain laws to a point and ensure that
(17:08):
at least this amount of time will be required to
be imposed as a sentence in kind of cases. But
the problem, of course with that is that once you
strip away discretion, then you lose the ability to place
a defendant context, a defendant who has maybe not been
the prime mover in a case, who's a fringe player,
who's the getaway driver, that sort of thing, and you
(17:30):
lump everybody into the same boat. That's not good either.
So we keep bouncing between too much discretion not enough discretion.
We're trying to get it right, and I think the
effort is an important one, but I think it's necessary
to get into what really is what each defendant did.
The punishment must fit the crime. It can't just be
(17:51):
a one size fits all, And that's a really important
thing because motivation does matter. It matters what a defendant
intended to do, It matters how things went out, So
I mean, I'm all for context and nuance. And by
the way, that's kind of what got me so intrigued
by Lawyer X was why would a woman so at
the top of her game, so celebrated, so successful, Why
(18:15):
would she now put herself in so much jeopardy. She's
still inviting because she's in jeopardy from the clients that
she betrayed, and she's in jeopardy because of the cops
whose cases are now getting overturned left and right, because
of the violation of the conflicts, ethical conflicts as well
as legal errors that occurred as a result of what
she did. Why would someone do this? Why would you
(18:38):
want to destroy your career, your life this way? That
kind of stuff really matters, And you know, and I,
by the way, that comes full circle to your question
about what intrigues us about true crime? The why of
it all? I think is the ultimate question that gets
us going. And I really can't come to a final
conclusion about why Lawyer X did what she did. I'm
(18:58):
really hoping I get to talk to some of the
people who hear the podcast and see what they think
is the why of it all.
Speaker 3 (19:12):
Marsha listening to you talk with so much passion about
certainly the case on lawyer adicts, but also just the
justice system. You sound like someone who would be a
benefit to us all if you were in the justice system.
Have you thought about I know you don't want to
go back into a courtroom, but have you thought about
any other way to serve even that's running for office
of some kind? Has that crossed your mind?
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Never? Never come on? I mean, should let me tell
you how this goes? Because I can't lie. I don't lie.
I might not say something. You know, I might withhold
what I think at a given time to try and
not just spare people's feelings, but I would be direct.
So you know, somebody asked, what do you think of
(19:55):
this policy? What do you think of this law? I
won't tell them, And you know what that means. The
shortest campaign you ever saw.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Can I say, though you have been completely vetted because
you went through the Ringer. I mean, you know, just
that public scrutiny that you had. I mean, I don't
know if if we had seen that really before, because
you were a pioneer.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
In a lot of ways.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
To see a woman in charge of this massive legal team,
and how many other women. Did we even see at
that point in our lives in positions of power, where
you would have and your looks, what you were wearing,
your perm your everything, What was your mental health like that?
Because really, I don't know that you had anyone to
(20:41):
turn to to say what should I do?
Speaker 2 (20:43):
How can I stop this? You know what? I did
turn to our media people in the DA's office, but
they didn't know either because this had never happened before.
What do you do? I mean, this is something that
it's really hard to imagine this today in today's world
with social media, Twitter, etc. Excuse me x, Instagram, you know,
(21:04):
the whole line yards. We've lived with this now for
so many years that it's hard to imagine what life
was like back then. But back in ninety four when
I got the case, a high profile case meant maybe
they'll spell my name right, Probably they won't even mention
my name. That's it. Picture of me, no way, only
if I'm in the background, because they're taking a picture
(21:25):
of the defend and I happen to be standing over there.
So there's no there's no way to account for what happened.
It was It wasn't supposed to be like that and
a high profile case. Back then, if they the media
showed up at the time of the arraignment, that's all
you would see of them. They disappear and they'd maybe
come back in time for the verdict, maybe not. They
just report on it without having been in the court room.
(21:48):
Things changed when Simpson happened, and suddenly we had a
twenty four news hour cycle and cable stations that could
broadcast around the country constantly. And then you know, we
had the cameras in the courtroom, which we shouldn't have
had to the degree we did. That was a mistake.
And you know, this is one of those things you
(22:08):
need a judge who really knows how to manage things.
In other words, let the cameras in when the jurors there,
jury is there, and keep the cameras out when the
jury is not there. That's the only way you can
be sure that stuff that is not supposed to be
presented to the jury is not presented to the world.
They didn't do that. I mean, print reporters will always
be allowed in. But if you don't control the video,
(22:31):
because that's what people are most likely to see and
care about, then you have lost control of the whole
nine yards. So it was crazy because there was no
there was no experience of this. There was no This
was an experiment of one at the time who knew
what to do about this. There was no stopping it.
So no, there was no way, no one to talk
to because no one knew how to anticipate what this
(22:54):
was going to be.
Speaker 3 (22:56):
That's a good point. This was new to everybody. Seems
like we have these celebrity trials all the time now
and one with cameras, but at the time, you all
were a first for us. I do have to ask
because we had we saw the news several months ago
on the passing the death of OJ Simpson and saw
a statement you put out simply saying my condolences to
the family of OJ Simpson. Did you have more you
wanted to say and have wanted to say? And just
(23:18):
what was your reaction in that moment when you heard
that he had passed?
Speaker 2 (23:21):
Was my reaction? I mean, I wasn't kidding TJ when
I said I can't be a politician. I said exactly
what I thought. You know, his family doesn't deserve any
of this. His family loved him, I'm sure, and felt
the lost keenly. I didn't know at the time he
had been ill, so there it was probably not as
big a shock to them, but still probably fairly painful.
(23:45):
And so that's all I thought was, I send my
condolences to the family.
Speaker 3 (23:49):
You tell me what you'd always tell us what you think.
Did you feel anything?
Speaker 2 (23:54):
That's what I felt, sorry for the family, I mean,
you know what I mean that that was it. There
was nothing. I I said exactly what I think of
mister Simpson many times and on camera, and so there's
nothing to add. How much of.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
What you went through and experience with that trial fuels
what you do now?
Speaker 2 (24:15):
You said, you know you love the truth searching for
the truth.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Does the outcome that happened then back then fuel your
passion today?
Speaker 2 (24:25):
I think it's unchanged. I think the passion I had
for truth and justice back then is the same as
I have now. I had it then, have it now?
Speaker 1 (24:34):
You know?
Speaker 2 (24:35):
It's always mattered to me. I don't think that's any different.
But I found different outlets for it, and some are
more fun than others. But I when I first published
my first crime fiction book, Publishers Weekly put out the
banner saying, Clark turns to fiction to control the outcome.
(24:57):
I thought that was right on yeah, truth. But also
I'm handling criminal appeals for the indigen These are court
appointed cases. After someone in California, I think this is
throughout the country, it gets convicted of a felony, they're
entitled to an appeal, a direct appeal to the Court
of Appeals by the time they've gone through a trial,
if they even had money at that time, which many don't,
(25:20):
but even if they did, they're tapped out by the
time it's time for an appeal, and so the Court
of Appeal will point lawyers to represent them. And this
is all in writing. This is all research and writing.
We're error catchers, is what we are, and I'm doing
that as well, so I am still able to seek
the truth and seek justice, you know, in the field
(25:42):
of criminal law in a serious way, not just with
crime fiction. But that's fun too.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
It's so impressive to hear all that you've done and
all that you've accomplished and all that you're still doing,
and it's just remarkable. And I have to say, you know,
you think you know someone, but that when you sit
down and you talk with them, this is it's been such.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
A pleasure you.
Speaker 1 (26:01):
We love real people and real people who've been through
real ship and uh and are still kicking ass. And
that's exactly what you're doing, so we really it's it's
inspiring to see you and to hear you, and I
want you to remind everyone if you wouldn't mind, where
they can catch this podcast and just let them know
how they can find it.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
You can watch Informants Lawyer X on Apple, Spotify Where
and Wondery Plus. If you subscribe to one Wondery Plus
you'll get it ad free, which is cool, and also
some extras as well, So anywhere you find your podcast,
especially Wondering Plus. Thank you so much, guys, it's been
a real pleasure.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
Marcia, Thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
Take care
Hosts And Creators
Amy Robach
T.J. Holmes
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.