forcibly take his property back. and the insinuation that i would have blessed it or anybody else would w a license to practice law would have blessed it is insane. you could really see him fuming there. it wasn t it was an incredible exchange, rounding out a week of fireworks. with no jury, the judge s decision is expected in the next couple of weeks and experts seem to think o. j. simpson has a good chance of getting a new trial. back to you. kelly: thanks so much. jamie: we have to take a closer look at what this means for o. j. simpson. what does it mean for galanter. let s bring in our panel. david schwartz, also criminal defense attorney, former prosecutor, two of the folks i would call if i were in trouble. good to have you both here. thank you. jamie: rebecca, how thigh hay is the standard high is the standard to prove that a lawyer has been ineffective? it s a very high standard and i think what we re look at here is o.j. making a very desperate attempt that re
any rational sense. the idea that yale galanter would actually tell him to commit a crime because as we know, what o.j. did, going into a hotel room armed subject to being disbarred and being put in jail for conspiracy of criminal behavior is outrageous. jamie: so you re saying it s probably not worth the risk. we are even under as attorneys an obligation if we know a client is going to commit a crime to notify authorities? absolutely. jamie: david, there are three things that o.j. is saying. one, i was told not to take the stand. i wasn t really given a choice. two, there were plea deals on the table, i wasn t informed of. three, he is saying that his
counsel. jamie: that is such an interesting analysis and good information on this. so now, david, you heard o.j., i want to ask both of you on the stand, how compelling a witness is he now? how compelling would he have been if, in fact, it made sense for him to take the stand? i agree rebecca on that stand to accuse your attorney of a serious crime like that, you better have the evidence and you better have the back up. so if it s just o.j. s word versus yale galanter s word, yale galanter is going to win the day. he s a credible attorney. he happened to do a very nice job during that trial and certainly he was effective during that case and i wouldn t give his testimony any credibility whatsoever. that s o.j. jamie: the judge will value all the evidence. that s clearly your opinion. rebecca, i ll ask you as well, how would o.j. prove that yale galanter told him, go and get your stuff and knowingly that there were weapons involved, o.j. was going to ask for guns, let him go he ha
essentially the argument that galanter failed to effectively represent him back in 2008 when he was accused of stealing his own sports memorabilia from las vegas dealers. the judge has not set a date for the ruling yet but karen desociety see former defense attorney and prosecutor, wendy murphy is a former prosecutor. i wanted to bring you guys both in to talk about this and the jodi arias control. based on my conversations with mr. simpson the day after the event, he told me that did he ask alexander to bring guns. how damaging was galanter s testimony? ouch. talk about throwing attorney client privilege out the window.
he doesn t prove it. it becomes his word against galanter s word. in a normal case you say, well, we re going to weigh it fairly. but in this case, you have o. j. simpson who has been clearly problematic over the course of time. jamie: can i bring up one more thing? absolutely. jamie: before we go, a lot of people say that he s in prison right now not for going and grabbing his memorabilia, but because they believe he killed his wife and her friend. so the question is, could he have made an argument that there was some prejudice against him for sentencing due to a prior crime? he could have made that argument, but the jury came to a conclusion that he was guilty on these counts. so any argument that he may make in that vein doesn t really hold any water in a court of law. it may be all of his publicity and all of his nonsense, but the reality is, we had jurors who decided fairly. i am sure, i go to court every day. i select juries. jurors want to do the right thing in every c