Galanter Throws O.J. Simpson Under the Bus

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri May 17, 2013 at 02:22:53 PM EST
Tags: O.J. Simpson (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

O.J. Simpson's former attorney, Yale Galanter, threw O.J. under the bus today, testifying O.J. told him he knew others were bringing guns to the hotel room where O.J. planned to retrieve his possessions. He even said O.J. told him he asked the others to bring the guns (called "heat.")

He also testified he told O.J. not to engage in the plan.

"He told me he finally had a lead on some personal pictures and memorabilia that was stolen from him years earlier," Galanter testified. "I said, 'O.J., you've got to call the police.'"

Things aren't looking good for O.J., even though other lawyers involved in the case have supported O.J.'s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel: [More...]

The most damaging testimony about Mr Galanter's performance came from three other lawyers involved in the case: Gabriel Grasso and Malcolm LaVergne, who represented Simpson, and Brent Bryson, who represented a Simpson co-defendant who also was convicted. Each said Mr Galanter seemed more interested in what he was paid and protecting himself from having to testify than in fully representing his client.

Galanter also denied not discussing plea offers with O.J.

The trial judge in the case is also taking to the media, defending the sentence she imposed and Galanter's defense.

"I watched that trial because I was the judge that presided over it and I saw the legal work that was done," explains Glass. "Yale Galanter is a fine lawyer and did an outstanding job. The evidence in that case was overwhelming."

< Uzbek Terror Suspect Pleads Not Guilty | Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Docket: Missing Entries >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Galanter Throws O.J. Simpson Under the Bus | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Here's the real question (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by jbindc on Fri May 17, 2013 at 02:45:52 PM EST

Testimony has shown that Galanter pocketed about $500,000 from Simpson while representing him in the robbery case. The lawyer was supposed to use part of the money to provide for a proper defense, which included hiring investigators, experts.

Where did OJ get $500,000 and how much has he paid in restitution to the Brown and Goldman families? Not anywhere near the $33.5 million he owes.

Hmm....whom to believe here? A professional actor who, while acquitted of murder, was found civily liable for the brutal deaths of two people, and who obviously has a lot riding on the court actually believing his side of this story to try and get out of prison, or 3 attorneys, all of whom have great financial stakes in the outcome?

Don't Forget ... (none / 0) (#4)
by ScottW714 on Fri May 17, 2013 at 03:50:48 PM EST

... his masterpiece, If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer.


: Which can now be had on Amazon ... (none / 0) (#16)
by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 17, 2013 at 08:29:37 PM EST

... at an 81% markdown from its original price of $24.95, or probably for 99 cents in the remainder rack at your local used bookstore.

it wasn't his money (none / 0) (#10)
by Jeralyn on Fri May 17, 2013 at 05:21:30 PM EST

his family and others raised it for him. Nice try though.


: If this ruly was his memorabilia (none / 0) (#36)
by jbindc on Sun May 19, 2013 at 04:56:42 PM EST

That he was trying to get back, then he should have sold it years ago to pay the Browns and Goldmans.
Nice try in spinning it another way, though.

: Evidently OJ has a (none / 0) (#39)
by Natal on Sun May 19, 2013 at 09:48:47 PM EST

$25,000/month NFL pension which I understand can't be touched by the civil suit.

Ethics (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Cylinder on Fri May 17, 2013 at 03:07:31 PM EST

Is it unusual for a previous judge to make statements in during a pending appeal? That seems a bit questionable. I can understand some measured remarks about a high-profile case after the thing is decided, but come on...

Seems logical though unusual (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Fri May 17, 2013 at 04:20:33 PM EST

for the trial judge to weigh in when the competency of one of the trial attorneys is questioned via the legal process.


I think a judge should refrain from (none / 0) (#13)
by Jeralyn on Fri May 17, 2013 at 06:11:49 PM EST

making extrajudicial comments about the merits of a case that another judge is now hearing. I think she should have at least waited until the decision was rendered.


: I agree completely (none / 0) (#20)
by bmaz on Sat May 18, 2013 at 07:07:03 AM EST

In fact I would be a little harsher than that, I think it is outrageous for a lateral judge in the same court to take actions directly telling her fellow judge how he should rule, both commenting on the facts and law, and putting pressure on to support the prior decision. It is simply unacceptable.
Jon Turley went after the judge in the Casey Anthony case for the same type of conduct. I actually think in many ways, the lateral actions here in OJ are worse.

Just my observation here, but ... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 17, 2013 at 08:13:05 PM EST

... I believe that Mr. Galanter's competence is being called into question by his former client.

I'm not taking sides, and I know you said that you're not passing judgment on what he did today -- but has Mr. Galanter not the right and indeed, the obligation to defend himself against such serious allegations, which would amount to professional misconduct were it found to be true?

Further, Jeralyn, would you not do much the same as Yale Galanter, were it your professional reputation on the line here, rather than his?

Honestly, I consider you to be someone with a very high bar of professional and personal integrity. No doubt, you certainly didn't get to where you are today by playing the part of fool, chump or dingbat, for anyone or anything.

And as such, I can hardly perceive you to be the type who would, as you stated, "opt for falling on [your] sword while still answering truthfully so as not to damage [your former] client's chances of a new trial even in the face of an ineffective claim." I'd like to think it's because doing so would perhaps constitute a serious betrayal of your own concept of self-worth, both professionally and personally.

And really, while none of us are perfect and we're all fully capable of making mistakes -- even egregious ones -- in both our lives and our careers, if we project an aura of self-doubt about either ourselves or our abilities, then it would further stand to reason that anyone else's longstanding confidence in us would be shaken, and their belief in our capability would soon become problematic.

Personally, I'd also like to believe that while you would undoubtedly be meticulously truthful in answering whatever questions which might be posed to you during any such public hearing, and that you would further take scrupulous care to not betray the attorney-client privilege, you would also bristle mightily at anyone's suggestion of personal incompetence and / or unprofessional conduct on your part, and you would not hesitate to push back -- and push back very hard -- against any and all such allegations and / or accusations.

Aloha.

: Attorney client privilege (none / 0) (#40)
by ackbarsays on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:43:46 AM EST

OJ waived attorney/client privilege to allow his attorneys to testify.
Miami attorney Yale Galanter contradicted much of Simpson's earlier testimony while under questioning at a hearing in which his former client is seeking a new trial on grounds of ineffective legal representation.
Galanter testified the former football hero confided to him that he had indeed asked two men to bring guns to the hotel room confrontation and "he knew he screwed up."
Galanter hesitated and spoke only after he paused, breathed deeply and was reminded that Simpson had waived attorney-client privilege.
"I'm very uncomfortable doing this," Galanter said.
He said that based on conversations with Simpson, his then-client had asked the two others to bring guns.
"He said, 'The other guys had guns and I didn't,'" Galanter said.
On the basis of that, Galanter said he made the decision not to claim at trial that Simpson couldn't see the guns in the hotel room.
"To argue that he had tunnel vision and didn't see these guns was absurd to me," Galanter said.

What's (none / 0) (#3)
by lentinel on Fri May 17, 2013 at 03:50:43 PM EST

weird, and even definitive for me, is that OJ has been quoted as saying that Yale Galanter, his former attorney whom he now maligns, told him that he had a right to claim his things, but not to trespass, and not to use force.

From every account I have read, OJ used force ("heat" - guns among his coterie) and trespassed upon the premises of the person allegedly selling his memorabilia.

Maybe I have the story wrong... but if I have it right, he ignored the council of the attorney he is now accusing of not being an adequate representative.

I must admit that I have been totally unconvinced of OJ's innocence regarding the murders of his wife and Ron Goldman - and that may influence me in some regard --- but I also will say that seeing him testify in this current hearing I felt some sympathy for him in spite of myself.

Nevertheless - I don't see that he has a leg to stand on vis a vis this appeal.

While not excusing anything that OJ has allegedly (none / 0) (#8)
by magster on Fri May 17, 2013 at 04:46:26 PM EST

done, assuming he did it, I wonder if the repeatedly concussed brain syndrome so many football players suffered was part of the problem. I wonder how long before that syndrome is used as a defense.


: My (none / 0) (#9)
by lentinel on Fri May 17, 2013 at 05:09:59 PM EST

personal opinion is that whatever knocks to the brain he may have suffered has no bearing on the situation.
He seemed, and seems, very lucid, very intelligent and with as much recall of events as he wishes to have.
My personal feeling has been, and continues to be, that he contracted a gigantic ego due to the adoration of the fawning media. He thought he could do absolutely anything. Have you ever seen anything like that "chase"? He was treated as a superior being. A God. Anybody else would have been blockaded or shot down. I don't wonder that he was perplexed that he would be charged with a crime.
But all that is secondary or irrelevant to the current case - in which he is asking for a new trial based on the incompetence of his representation.
I just don't see that he has a case.

Bad Headline For the Post (none / 0) (#6)
by Michael Masinter on Fri May 17, 2013 at 04:25:09 PM EST

Like every witness, Yale Galanter has an obligation to tell the truth, and if the truth happens to injure his former client, then telling the truth does not seem to me to be throwing O.J. under the bus. How would you have had him answer the question posed assuming the answer he gave was truthful? Surely not by lying under oath. Perhaps the law respecting waiver of privilege should be different, but given that law I'm at a loss to understand what Mr. Galanter should have done differently.

ISTM OJ threw OJ under the bus (none / 0) (#7)
by RonK Seattle on Fri May 17, 2013 at 04:42:33 PM EST

If counsel is called to testify in a case alleging ineffectiveness of said counsel, does any atty/client privilege or ethical consideration even allow him to refrain from giving such testimony?


no the privilege belongs to the client (none / 0) (#11)
by Jeralyn on Fri May 17, 2013 at 05:41:24 PM EST

and the client is deemed to have waived the privilege when he claims his lawyer was ineffective.


That certainly clarifies things. (none / 0) (#15)
by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 17, 2013 at 08:23:46 PM EST

Thank you for that. I was envisioning some sort of "Catch 22"-type of professional nightmare, in which ethical considerations would otherwise prohibit attorneys from responding truthfully and assertively in their own defense, with due regard to any allegations of incompetence or misconduct on their part.


How does this work in practice? (none / 0) (#17)
by Belswyn on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:01:13 PM EST

For example, in a death penalty case, if the appeal is based on ineffective assistance of counsel, and the case were remanded for a new trial, can the old, ineffective counsel be examined to see if the client ever told the old counsel that he did it?

Thanks in advance!


: probably not (none / 0) (#18)
by Jeralyn on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:29:57 PM EST

Here's an ethics opinion on it. And an ABA article.

Under Rule 1.6(b)(5), a lawyer may disclose information without the client's consent only to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes is necessary to "respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the client."
But the committee concluded that disclosure of client information, even in those circumstances, can rarely be justified. "A lawyer may be concerned that without an appropriate factual presentation to the government as it prepares for trial, the presentation to the court may be inadequate and result in a finding in the defendant's favor," states the opinion. "Such a finding may impair the lawyer's reputation or have other adverse, collateral consequences for the lawyer. This concern can almost always be addressed by disclosing relevant client information in a setting subject to judicial supervision."
In a post-Strickland environment, notes the opinion, "there is no published evidence establishing that court resolutions have been prejudiced when the prosecution has not received counsel's information outside the proceeding. Thus, it will be extremely difficult for defense counsel to conclude that there is a reasonable need in self-defense to disclose client confidences to the prosecutor outside any court-supervised setting."

: also see (none / 0) (#19)
by Jeralyn on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:42:21 PM EST

here, p.6

Judicial decisions addressing the necessity for disclosure under the self defense
exception to the attorney-client privilege recognize that when there is a legitimate need for the lawyer to present a defense, the lawyer may not disclose all information relating to the representation, but only particular information that reasonably must be disclosed to avoid adverse legal consequences
Also see this case.

it sounds like he volunteered (none / 0) (#12)
by Jeralyn on Fri May 17, 2013 at 06:08:36 PM EST

that rather it being in response to a direct question like "Did OJ tell you he knew guns would be brought to the hotel room." I'd have to see the transcript.

The headline is accurate. It's what he did. Whether he was justified in doing so is another matter and I didn't opine on that.

Many lawyers opt for falling on their sword while still answering truthfully so as not to damage their client's chances of a new trial even in the face of an ineffective claim. Galanter isn't one of them. Again, it's not a judgment.


: Yeah, a lot of lawyers (none / 0) (#23)
by bmaz on Sat May 18, 2013 at 11:11:10 AM EST

actually are willing to have some ineffectiveness alleged if they believe in the case of their client, so long as it doesn't rise to bar problem level. Galanter was awfully strong for the prosecution for my taste, but heck I don't really know the underlying dynamics well enough to really say.
Was Galanter subpoenaed?

: So question... (none / 0) (#37)
by inclusiveheart on Sun May 19, 2013 at 08:38:32 PM EST

Shouldn't the lawyer have advised OJ that he (the lawyer) might be under obligation to call the police given the fact that OJ told him that he (OJ) intended to take his possessions back by threatening these people with a gun? Did OJ's lawyers privy to that information then become obligated as officers of the court to prevent the crime beyond just "advising" a client not to commit the crime?
I understand that I am not asking an easy question, but I find this testimony (if it has been accurately reported) to be a bit troubling - like this attorney is trying to preempt being hit with questions about why he would not have stopped his client from going to retrieve his property while armed with guns. Imagine if there had been some sort of bloody gun battle during that encounter. How could the attorney not