Skip to main content

tv   Marcia Clark Discusses Without a Doubt and Blood Defense  CSPAN  August 13, 2016 8:00am-8:49am EDT

8:00 am
in journalist monique morris discusses how some school policies have a negative impact on the lives of black female students. also this weekend on why
8:01 am
americans have lost faith. a look at the life of helen garlic brown. enter impact on the women's movement. the recount of the social and political upheavals that took place in the u.s. that is just a few of the programs you will see a book tv this weekend. for complete television schedule check out our website. television for serious readers. and now we kick off the weekend with author and attorney marcia clark. she talks about her book blood defense and without a doubt. i would like to give a special thank you to all of the festival sponsors. the theme for this year's festival is what is your story and we encourage everyone to share the stories you hear
8:02 am
this weekend on twitter, instagram and facebook.ep the s you can keep the spirit going year-round by downloading the printer pro app which gives you all of the premium book content. in the complete schedule. if you download today you canoa get a free e-book and $5 off lit fest merchandise. today's program is being broadcast live on c-span two book tv. if there's time at the end for q&a session we will ask all of you to line appear to your right and use the microphone so that the home viewing audience can hear your question.phon before we begin the last thing i ask is to silence your phones turn off the flash on any cameras that you have. with that please welcome david heitzman. with marcia clark.ople i
8:03 am
>> good morning everyone. thank you very much for being here and waiting in line. we are excited to see so may people in the seats. several weeks ago the planners ask me if i would benn interested in interviewing marcia clark here and i have just finished watching the miniseries the people versus o.j. simpson and my immediatee reaction was this is great i have some questions. so how do people saw that miniseries? she has some thoughts on that. but for me it started when you became a household name you were defined in a certain kind of way that would not had been
8:04 am
your choosing. in this series is starting to redefine you and they focus on your character and probably defined you in a little bit more whether there were qualms with portrayal of the whole story or not.out but can you talk a little bit about that experience of being a career prosecutor in an office and suddenly becoming famous in that way and your eventual path to hear we are today 20 years later and you are a novelist. tell us a little bit about that evolving career for you. >> thank you for throwing me a softball. really i became a prosecutor.
8:05 am
i've been a criminal defense lawyer first i became a prosecutor and expected to do that for the rest of my life. that was my plan and then the simpson case happened. and suddenly everything about the trials that i had been doing for 14 or 15 years at that point trying cases turned upside down. and it became this incredibly insane circus presided over by a judge who handed the reins over to the defense and courted celebrities and it was a sorrow world. it was really like a comic book thing. the i was in denial about the whole celebrity business and how we have all become publicss figures and that kind of worked well for me until it did it.rking well it stopped working well for me. it was a couple months and in
8:06 am
the case have become so hot so fast so the murders happen in june by august there was nowhere that i could go without being recognized in the first time that became a problem i was in an shopping with my kids and they were little little boys are like electrons i'm alone and i'm running after them. this girl comes up to be said give me your autograph and i said why? why would you want my autograph? an she got mad and she said you're famous you're famous. so i scrolled my scrawled my name and wrap rain after my kids. and then i realized things
8:07 am
have changed and i don't know if they will ever be the same again.goin going out to dinner became no longer an option or if we did go out you'd had to get in a secure way.out i'd be careful about going out with the kids. people did take videos and photographs the news mediahe ne blocked out the kids at faces. it's one of the very few things i can think them for. and then the trial happened and it was a nightmare that didn't end. from day one there was something exploding in insane things going wrong with it.emed as everyone seem to forget that there are two innocent people who are brutally murdered this is a double homicide trial. it's not the dancing egos it
8:08 am
is not a sideshow. everest one seem to forget. i cannot even express the pain of seeing justice diverted every single day no matter what i did objecting to it every day feeling like i was screaming into a hurricane. it just didn't matter. and so when that was over i was really spent i was disillusioned and disheartened and i had have it and i walked out of the courthouse on the day of the verdict and i never went back. i just thought i don't know what to do but i'm not doing that i did recover it took a while to figure out how to be and who to be i round up beingen a correspondent for entertainment tonight. i did a lot of really weird things that was the funniest.
8:09 am
i cover the michael jackson trial. i go running out. they argue this motion aboutt -, no marshall what was he wearing. speeone how did it feel to be put through the ringer and that one way and then for your next act to have those be the best opportunities for you to stay in the public eye? ? i didn't want too.day th i do want to write a book about the trial i do want to tell everybody the truth i was on the inside of it from the date the bodies were found until the very end and i canan tell you about not only the investigation but the trial in a way that no one else can and i want to do it now and while i remember it all. so i have to keep remembering it myself. if you want to know there it is. but if i did that then it have
8:10 am
to be in the public eye again and it was so hot after the trial i couldn't go anywhere without being filed. -- followed. there's nothing like walking at your front door and seen a camera lens train on the trained on the front door. i really thought maybe i shouldn't do this. my agent said it's gonna beke like this anyway for you you may as will write the book. and i just kind became like this is the way it is. it will die down and it did it was really cool and now it's fine.le -- th people don't recognize me that much. the benefit of age.good thi it can be a good thing. >> the book starts up entry into and she is doing a cnn
8:11 am
bent because that's what you do if you are a lawyer in la. >> g just part of the game. >> gknow well how that goes. after the simpson trial it became became a new form oftr entertainment. and lawyers especially the younger ones who needed to get their name out there and pump up the practice go on this cable talk shows. the lead she incorporates sof much of my life experience as a defense lawyer and i'm doing criminal defense now i get to incorporate all of the wild characters i get to meet in it. and talk also about the way the world is for a lawyer now. she is sitting in a studio tweeting come see me and thenre
8:12 am
the response she gets on the twitter feed which aren't always as friendly as you might think. i incorporate everyday life in today's world in the world of legal practice. >> you draw on she's a younger defense lawyer tell us a little bit about yourtt experiences as a young defense lawyer or in this book she's on social media and on tv a lot. she is still living hand to mouth. it doesn't mean you'reth necessarily rolling in doughit'u that such a great point. people see you on tv and think you must therefore be rich at the equation that we all make. but it's not true a lot of the people that you see talking on tv are just living regular lives or and in samantha'ss case not even as good as regular.
8:13 am
her skirt held together with safety pins but you can't see that because the camera goes secure she has hair and makeup with her. and she looks like a millionon dollars. which she needs to in order to acquire clients because clients don't want to go to a lawyer who is down at the heels. c so when she also has a back story of a not great youth and some abuse. and it gives her some sympathy for her clients maybe can you talk a little bit about having been a defense lawyer and then becoming a prosecutor and then now back to do defense work how you view and you change the criminal element and how that evolves are involves our goes back and forth. >> i was glad that i started
8:14 am
as a criminal defense lawyer. tt it demystifies that side of things. you realize very quickly that the majority of your clients are just goofballs they haveimp bad impulse control they don't have great judgment they act in the moment they don't think about consequences and then they get bit by that. there aren't much fewer them are actually do people harm for the fun of it.then y and then you have others. there is a mix there but the balance really is on the goofball side of things. and then i also really understood the defense perspective and this is something i think most people don't get. a defense attorney's job is to protect the clients interests advance interest advance the clients interests as best they can they are not concerned o
8:15 am
with a fair trial. they are concerned with following the rule of law. that is not their problem. so i to you about that mindset from samantha's point of view. it is a very distinct and differenttec mindset than thehe prosecutor. so when i went over to the side of the prosecution i really understood where they were coming from. there was someone some which i expected of them. i know you're gonna try to get everything you can for your client. my job is to object the judges job is to sustain my objection. better late than never. if you run into lance ito. it's one of the powers you seesa as anapolis you a novelist you get to write the ending. i think in everything we've seen about the oj trial. from day one it was a steamroller and just out-of-control and you have no
8:16 am
ability to exercise the kindr of control that a prosecutor used julie gets to do that. no lawyer goods to exercise gets to exercise control. it's up to the judge. they have the control. if he hands the reins over to one side or another it's always a big mistake. the judge is supposed to be sitting in the middle and be the referee that holds down the rules. if that doesn't happen you have chaos someone should get convicted who that is where the power lies. that's why when people sayay bei being a prosecutor or a trial lawyer is kind of like staging a play or filling a movie. you get to call the shots. you set it up in a certain wayfo and we deftly do it for dramatic impact at the end of a day on friday afternoon when i know you're to go home over the weekend and think about what you've just heard i'm in
8:17 am
a try to make my last witness of the day to blow your mind knock your socks off witnessed the best i can. however if the defense objects to something and it should be overruled and the defense and the judge sets the stage in my witness gets cut off at the knees it doesn't work. what it really is more like is you are somebody who is working on a film and the director gets to say cut yout. had that control. you have the control you set it up the best you can. but if someone is constantly during a spoke of the wheels. >> in this book to friends are murdered brutally with a knife one is famous one is not the conduct of the police is called into question. where to get ideas like this.
8:18 am
it does have that kind of superficial similarity.st: excet except the defendant is an lapd detective. the actors and her roommatee that are murdered. the theory is he is arrested for having murdered her in the roommate was a witness. she doesn't want to take the case even though it's a high-profile case it will be really good impede the bills in two months which is why her paralegal and her best friend said you to take the case. she really hates cops she does it for a reason that has to do with her own personal childhood where police were not there for her she does take the case and it winds up revealing a personal seeker in her life that can legally
8:19 am
turns her world upside down. there is a question in this book about which victim matters in which one doesn't because one of them is famousths and it's something that was a huge theme for you both in prosecuting oj but dealingde with the family. i do use my knowledge ability to make observations about the world and things that have happened and i've seen. i think all authors do that. of course i have the perspective of that particular trial. it was a painful thing to see every day. goldman that ron goldman got forgotten. i don't think nicole -- it's not that i don't think she's important. i did observe that same kind of dynamic happening in blood defense where paige who was page who was the actress and she had been a child star who fell on bad times wound uping dt falling down the tunnel with drugs and she pulled herself
8:20 am
up into a role that was really going to make her a star again and in that moment was murdered. she was the one who everyone was caring about.ut and her roommate was completely forgotten. speeone. >> when this miniseries came out ron goldman sister was out there and said this has got to be so painful. everybody who was involved. and for that family to have ithi go around again. kim and i exchanged e-mails. we were both being torn up all
8:21 am
over again as it does rip the scab off the wound that we are inflicted during the trial. and the pain of loss.r them, i cannot even imagine what they went through. but it have to be kind of a mixed bag for you a little bit because i did feel like that the woman that played you inie the midi series was good -- miniseries. for whatever the flaws were we have a completely different picture of who you are and what you were experiencing at least some of telling what all of those really lousy things were happening to you the first time around. what was that like? >> that was amazing. i think all of us got turned into cartoons.
8:22 am
that's something that can happen because the media delivers soundbites. who has time or interest to watch it dabble to gavel but your neck in a get a full picture of who the people are i might still be a cartoon. i think that the series brought out who we were as people and let the audience see that our community and that is due in large part to the incredible genius of the actors that we were gifted to have play us., sarah when i heard she was going to play me i thought i was miserable about this being made but when i heard it was her i thought will that's pretty cool.never ta
8:23 am
they didn't let any of them consult with us but i did wind up meeting her when it was already shot. we finally got together she wrote me this really sweet e-mail and we have multiple drinks just lime juice with a little bit of ice like a martini fantastic we drink them all night. and so have you talked to her since was she nervous about what you would think. she said i really believe that , brian murphy is the director he's the one responsible for
8:24 am
pulling out the sexism involved the trial which no one else have ever paid attention to or mentioned and i never thought anyone would. i was really surprised by that. she was concerned that all of us happy with the way we wereau pretrade because she thought none of us got a fair shake during the trial. i was pleased to be able to let her know through the interviews that i thought she was wonderful. somehow without ever talking to me she mentioned show how i was feeling inside i don'tal know how she did that but she's brilliant.ost: so th so the show is spent a lot of time on intimacies of your working and personal relationship with chris darden. was accurate in that way there is a lot of laying blame for it.
8:25 am
it was one of those impulsive let's do this in sympathy i know that chris felt that whated actually happened we have the blood expert on the stand and we have a good sidebar from another thing those side bars drove us so crazy and they went on for so long that for a certain portion of the trial we were just gonna just look at each other in the stand to the back of the lawyers area and try to resolve it ourselves and then let's put a stop to that. it was working kind of out which it never should. and lance ito said you should try on the gloves if you can't
8:26 am
do the experience it's not there. the demonstration means nothing. chris that said i want to do it. i said can we have a minute we stepped aside and have a big fight. i actually called upstairs to bill and brian and the rest of the team and i said you guys see any reason because i'm notot feeling it. i think this is a real bad idea i think he felt that we needed a big dramatic moment i think every litigator i've ever interviewed has at some point said never ask a question you don't know the answer too. there's bound to be questions you ask that you are going to
8:27 am
get an unexpected answer too.nst you do a demonstration with a defendant who has no motive to help you make it work try putting gloves on someone that doesn't want to put them on. it's very easy and of course he have to wear gloves underneath. have that would've been problematic even if he had been cooperative and then of course the glove had been frozen and unfrozen. nothing about this was designed to work. clearly that was a big mistake. but on the other side of things i knew also that we were can have a glove expert explained all of that and i know a lot of you already thought of that. what can you expect i knew that we were to have anlike identical pair of gloves that
8:28 am
have not been frozen and unfrozen same size just like the ones nicole bought for him we proved that she did with receipts. it was a limited edition. 300 pairs were made. we proved that also. and then we did put those gloves on him.froese and they fit perfectly. the media didn't make a big deal of it. we countered all of it. my first experience is covering courts even murder trials there pretty dry and awkward lawyers flipping their notes would it be any
8:29 am
different if they have to observe it through the coverage of the la times. rather than turning on every day and see a fixed cameramera c picking up your every facial expression. and everything that happens all day long do you think the jury was in the room. it would have been different in the sense that you put the camera in the courtroom it galvanizes the players to perform for the camera and if you have a judge who loves celebrity and the limelight lawyers love to stretch in front of the camera. motions go on forever.en the and then the worst problem of all is that your witnesses who make up stories to make themselves relevant because they want face time orre witnesses who don't want to face time and refuse to come forward with important evidence. in that way it certainly did
8:30 am
have an impact. i don't have a have an impact headed impact on that jury. >> and other first-time i was c in a court room with cameras it was a court hearing in detroit. the camera was in the back in the this little jury box thing he kept kept looking over and he was looking at the camera he wasn't really paying attention to people.ne thing one of the things about this case that i thought didn't jive with my recollections was that treatment of lance ito. it was the first time we talked it was one of the first things you said. where did that come from. he was really the greatest source of misogyny in that trial you saw.
8:31 am
it may be because it's so hard to deliver dramatically what the judge is doing wrong. they did show him making a comment about my hair and they did say he was bragging about an autographed picture of arsenio hall.t there what they didn't show and i thought they could've shown was that there was a steady stream of celebrities in and out of chambers every single day.get and periodically we would get called into chambers because they wanted to meet us. i'm actually trying a lawsuit.an unlike you can talk to witnesses. it was crazy. he sat down for six part s interview about his life in the beginning of the trial.at? why would you do this?
8:32 am
that's it i i mean about distorting influence. i think the cameras in the t courtroom can be a fine thing. the if a judge with a spine to hold them and check and make sure that things don't spinnd out of control and not be like that.ere neve they can't be in the courtroom when the jury is not there. that way the jury has no chance of seen on television seeing on television what they were never supposed to see. if to seek out print. television cameras you can get bombarded by images when you walk past the bar. even if you want to abate your duty not to look. it can be hard to hold to that line because it's everywhere. e if it's handled correctly it can really be something good. i really wish they have shown more of what he did wrong because i think it would be a teachable moment for not just all of us but for judges i
8:33 am
have not seen that kind of circus since.nce. early on in the book we mentioned this a little bit earlier samantha is, she can't afford it close and she iss talking about it. and she's going through the whole thought process.v camera when did you realize in the process in trial this is really happening. it is is not just a crazy media case but i mean judged by how i look i'm just curiousso what the process was like for you in the midst of trying to prepare for a giant trial.and you're always worried aboutt that. that's for trial lawyers all the time. you are concerned with the way h with what the jury sees. what you wear as a duty or credibility.and it's
8:34 am
it is a conservative color and all that stuff. in that way samantha also knows whether you're on camera are not my jury for watching and i need to create an image of a successful lawyer and also a strong lawyer in a credible lawyer so it's all about dressing for success in that way. do think standards are different for men and women lawyers.o it, to men had to do it when you get judged more harshly in terms of their parents from a beauty factor not a credibility factor. that's always a tough thing to deal with. in the context of the trial my hair and makeup and everything back then the media was everywhere usually now they're
8:35 am
not allowed in the hallways they have to be outside and if there's a camera in the court room it's a feed through the wall you don't see them. they have them literallyco sitting outside the courtroom doors. i would leave court and almost every day a person would run after me. just let me get concealer around your eyes. >> that had to be a giant distraction. >> i probably should have let them but it was kind of like taking a stand. i'm pretty sure the jury doesn't care whether they can see that dark circles and backs under my eyes. their focus on something else.au and that's my audience. that's why care about. i'm out there to appeal.
8:36 am
i was like a line in the sand that i drew. just leave me alone. >> i made light earlier that you took control of the narrative. but has that been therapeutic for you as you recovered fromm happened to you. >> i enjoy the creative process. it's really fun. i was addicted to crime from the time i was four years old. i never wanted to write that. i was addicted to all of that stuff. i just never thought i could make a living out of it. i went to law school. for me now it's like coming full circle and realizing a childhood dream. how do you organize your time now? of your working life is devoted to writing. how do you divvy that all up? neck it's really hard because
8:37 am
appellate work is really demanding. i will finish a couple of cases and then had to go and work on the book.d the ch i will do that for a few days and then i will go back.i haven' i haven't have a vacation in like six years i just kind of work all the time. minutes l >> does anyone want to ask a question? >> do you think oj was guilty? and what is your percentage of certainty. >> i am not answering that question one more time. i always wondered why his escape in the white bronco was
8:38 am
never brought to trial. >> first of all the car they escaped in was a different car. the items that were in the car duffel bag that have all the stuff we can prove who put w them in their i didn't knowpacki whether he packed that for him or someone else had packed up for him and once we put in the evidence of that bronco chase then they get to put in with all of the phone calls he made saying i didn't do it i loved her i didn't do it. i have this dicey piece of evidence that doesn't necessarily show he was planning to run because i can't prove who packed up that car in i get to put on all of his denials. so it far outweighed the upside. >> after the jury selection
8:39 am
did you really think you have a chance of getting a guilty verdict i thought it was the best we could hope for. i felt that way when i readwhenr jury questionnaires. you have to go through jury selection to know what was in heaven. but the final selection certainly did confirm my fearshd because we have an audience in a jury pool that was packed with people very favorable towards a symptom -- simpson. what i should say first jury selection is i don't get to go out on we can try to weed it out we have some challenges. >>u work with what you have. >> did you have a choice of any other venue.
8:40 am
>> it wasn't even a question at that time the santa monica courthouse was in a security risk not to mention also that this is can be a long cause trial. they push says downtown. they put us on the security for downtown because of the only place they could try theas case. given the state of the lapd and you have others other cases blah because of bad police work and did you have concerned about i hope there's not something they did this can cause us problems. >> we were confronting the issue of the racial divide in the miss trust with the black
8:41 am
community in particular for many years in los angeles and particularly in the downtown los angeles courthouse word been practicing for ten years before the case. that there would be an issue with the black jurors it was never in question the question as to what degree and how do iqu reach them. how do i assure them that he didn't plant the gloves it's not contaminated have i presented that. there was never an answer to that because when you're talking about a whole different set of issues that have nothing to do with your evidence it won't enter the problem. that was just something that have been true for so many years in los angeles and of course in this case also.radio >> i heard you on radio yesterday and you commented on the case of the young woman who have been raped in california and you just were so compassion.you gi
8:42 am
>> i can give my thoughts. but - the stanford case. this young woman was at a party drank a little too much pastor this guy got her out of the house and raped her on the ground behind a dumpster while she was unconscious. two young men bicycling by saw what was going on and call the police one of the young men rescued her was crying so uncontrollably and what he'd see he could even give a statement for a while it was that bad he was arrested when they went to trial he was convicted in the judge sentenced him to six months and made a statement about why saint longer than that would be damaging for his future it would have an adverse consequence on his life. her lif
8:43 am
she will never be the same. she wrote a moving letter to the judge in the and the court to talk about what he have done to her and how her lifean had been thrash and how she suffers for it. and that sentence was because he was a very famous swimmer who was an olympic hopeful he was given us past and i have to say i felt two ways about it number one six months for rape of an unconscious girl it is an outrage in and of itself number two, if this head beend n a young african-american man do you think he would've got six months i don't think so. in a comparable and another rape case the young man got 15 years.
8:44 am
i've been hearing that the judge is getting a lot of flak and i'm glad. i'm glad that people are speaking out and i'm glad that cnn is doing at townhall. she read her whole letter and she cried at various parts and so that i it was unbelievable what this woman has gone through but i have to say on a hopeful note its progress thatt' were talking about this its progress the people are speaking out. that this judge is getting the heat he is getting forgiving the sky a pass and i really hope that people pay attention to the fact that this man'ss father said while anythingha more than six months would be a harsher sentence given it was only 20 minutes of actionnd had to teach them young and teach them once and for all if everyone's drinking no one says yes.
8:45 am
if they have haven't read her statement is a pretty extraordinary document. you should seek it out. i want your opinion of that. in the blood evidence. >> i have my biggest problem with him.u recall i knew that he straight applied he knew dna inside and out he knew it very well. he founded the innocence project that uses dna to exonerate people who are wrongly convicted. i've sent a couple of clients to them.m. but what he did in that courtroom was unconscionable. we were objecting.
8:46 am
i can only take it so far. the defense does what they do. the thing that's funny to meet nick kept putting it out butut no one seemed to care is that his theories were conflicting.er at one point he would say they planted the blood trail and then at another point theyn nd would say know no it all got contaminated. the notion that he have the blood and spangled it is inflamed -- insane. it was discovered that led all the way to rocking him into his bedroom before he came back from chicago. so no one have him no one had his blood no one have anything in the blood trail was already there. it's not even possible. >> you've always been really inspirational to me in my lifeat
8:47 am
watching you right now work in cracked of rehabilitation.piecef how do you personally deal with working with someone that you know is innocent and then watching them get sent away forever and then how do you work with a person for 70 years and then live your life knowing that they are put away for something they didn't do? >> thank you i am honored. i just don't know. i have a client who is right now doing 50 to life he shouldn't should been doing maybe six years for manslaughter and it so wrong we fought and fought at every level i don't know what to tell you about that. it's heartbreak. i keep in touch with him and i keep writing to him and
8:48 am
telling him i believe you.in i know. it's the only thing left to offer because we've exhausted all of our remedies and youu can do that but as far as how you feel personally i haven't found a way either. and i want to tell you. bless you for the work you are doing. >> defined the danger of developing to think of skin.matw >> and i know how you could develop so thick of skin as to not sever over an injustice. matter what side of the lawsuit it is.pros it's all about justice. i think we're out of time.e -- i thank you very much think marcia for marsha for being here.

96 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on