Barbara Graham’s life and death received plenty of attention in the 1950s, but she is about to return to the spotlight, courtesy of a new book, “Trial by Ambush” by author and former O.J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark.
In 1953, a group of criminals used Graham to get a Burbank widow named Mabel Monahan to open her door so they could follow Graham in and rob her of a supposed stash of money. Things quickly went awry, and Monahan was killed. One of the men involved testified to the police but soon disappeared and was likely murdered by his colleagues; another took advantage of the situation and told the police a version of the story in which he tried to stop the violence and save the woman (in reality, he was likely the killer).
That man, Jack True, pinned much of the blame on Graham, who’d had a troubled life from almost the beginning but who had never committed a violent crime. While two other men were also tried and sent to their deaths for participating (True barely served time), all the headlines were reserved for Graham as the media tripped over themselves to convict this alleged ice-cold Jezebel in the press before the jury even had their say.
But the police and prosecution weren’t taking any chances and they went after Graham with all available legal tools and some that were illegal – they hid evidence and witnesses, lied to judges and pressured a woman in prison to seduce Graham and then get her to hire a man (who actually worked for law enforcement) to provide a fake alibi. They used Graham’s willingness to go along with the scheme as evidence that she was guilty, distorting and lying about what really happened.
After being vilified and then convicted, Graham was executed. But her image was partly rehabilitated a few years later when Susan Hayward won an Oscar for portraying her in the melodrama, “I Want to Live!”
But while Graham’s story has been told over and over, Clark, who worked as a public defender before becoming a prosecutor, saw that the story of the trial – with the media sensationalism and misogyny as well as the police and prosecutors’ misogyny and misbehavior – had never been fully examined. Clark, who knows a thing or two about headline-grabbing trials as a prosecutor in the Simpson murder trial, saw a chance to “write something with current-day resonance in terms of the issues raised for society, the media and our criminal justice system.”
Clark spoke by video recently about Graham and why her story still matters. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Q. You’ve lived through the media circus. How much had it changed from this case to the O.J. Simpson trial and how much has it changed since? Is this still relevant today?
We’re more aware of it but it’s still there. The media fell into lockstep, all of them vilifying Barbara as though they spoke with one voice, calling her a coldhearted evil temptress, which was incongruous given that she was a misdemeanor fringey player who had no violence in her background whatsoever. So even though I have thought, “Thank all the gods there was no Twitter, Instagram and TikTok when I was working on the O.J. case,” with social media and podcasters there would’ve been opposing points of view, which was especially true in Barbara’s case. The multiplicity of outlets today encourages dissenting voices. So there’s a plus to today’s craziness.
Q. Based on the law at the time, Graham was likely guilty because she was at the scene of the crime. What do you make of the woman who swore under oath that Barbara was home fighting with her husband?
I think the neighbor was being truthful in terms of what she believed had happened. She probably heard them fighting so many nights that it wasn’t very hard for her to be confused.
The press covered this young woman in a wheelchair like she was an angel and the jury seemed to fall in love with her. Had Barbara not already been so screwed over by the ambush that occurred in the case, it might’ve won her the case.
Q. So Graham went to her death because of a miscarriage of justice by the police and prosecutors. But she might have gone free with a mistaken alibi, which would also have been a miscarriage of justice. Is there a difference?
That would have been less upsetting. It is a miscarriage of justice in the sense that Barbara should not be allowed to be completely acquitted. We have a felony murder rule and California is now in the process of refining our understanding of the liability that a defendant should have for being involved in a felony where a homicide occurs. Back in the day, if you were involved it doesn’t matter whether you meant to kill or not, even if it was an accident, everybody’s on the hook for murder.
Nowadays, if you are the getaway driver or the lookout and didn’t furnish weapons or know people were armed then you couldn’t anticipate that a murder could happen. so you are liable for the felony but not the murder. I think that’s appropriate. The person should do some time but not be liable for murder.
Barbara went to the house as the lure to get this elderly woman, Mabel Monahan, to open the door. Since she left her gun in her bag in the car, then you’d be able to argue under the modern law that she should only be responsible for the felony. Back then, the only defense she had was alibi. If you’re there, you’re done. Today, I would be arguing vigorously that she should not be held liable as a major participant who acted with reckless indifference.
Q. Why did you feel compelled to go after these long-dead prosecutors for their behavior, some of which was illegal but some which was legal although probably unethical?
Reading those transcripts and the way that the case was handled made me so upset that I had to stand up and walk away multiple times. They hid evidence. I can easily imagine that there was a cowboy attitude in the DA’s office then, to get ’em at all costs, to put the notch in your belt. That’s why they went after Barbara as they did, because she was the jewel in the crown. You don’t get laurels for convicting the two thugs sitting next to her. So I think there is value in standing back to look at what we now see as malfeasance, but back then probably was accepted as the mission of the prosecutor.
I also think it’s good to step back years later and look at what’s moral, what’s ethical. Prosecutors have enormous power. With this book, it’s like I’m holding up a big red flag saying, “Think about what you’re doing. You know what’s right.”
Q. What do you hope people take away from the case?
All of the malfeasance in this case was truly upsetting, but it could happen today. It does happen today. We really do need to be aware of that. We also need to be aware of confirmation bias and groupthink – the police need to stand back and look logically and rationally at what the evidence is and what the circumstances are of all players, and not be sucked into the hive mind. But so do the prosecutors because they are the next layer. The prosecutor has to be logical and rational about what the evidence does and does not show and not just go blindly forth. Look at what you’re not seeing, look for what is not there as well as what is there.
The most important thing is to see both sides and search for the truth.
