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