Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Key testimony today and OJ Simpson's bid for a new trial and the attorney sensing claims to hold him that he could take his stuff back.
From two sports collectors today said.
Not true didn't happen Yale Galanter on the witness stand areas.
He defended the disgraced former football star during his arm robbery case -- few years ago earlier this week.
Simpson -- and that he crafted the sting operation based on his advice from his former lawyer.
-- -- said he did not give him the go ahead.
Did you advise him regarding that -- -- he never told me of a plan.
And second I -- call the police.
He he had or tried to call the police and they weren't doing anything.
Nice -- OJ you know you got a -- weeks.
Remember Sampson has also repeatedly claimed he did not know anybody had a gun.
That -- they burst into the room another claim his former attorney refuted today.
-- on my conversation in this sense.
He -- told me that he did in fact there's.
-- -- regardless.
Simpson is now serving up to 33 years in prison for that incident his current attorneys argue that you should get a new trial because.
The latter botched the first month with us -- to break -- -- case criminal defense attorney.
Evangeline Gomez if you see it.
Bob the -- -- absolutely buried Simpson today on the witness stand especially.
Devastating because their whole defense was OJ -- know anything about guns there was no violence.
And and it came as a complete surprise to -- somebody haven't gone well now we know since -- the one.
The guy was all a big alive.
Simpson's arguing that that wasn't true at all that -- was the one who told him.
This is if somebody takes a minute belongs to you you can go and take it back now.
This sound frivolous how ever if -- entered did in fact and again these are at OJ's allegations did in fact given this advice.
The -- shoe as he should not have represented him in trial.
Because as Simpson's defect defense is arguing guess what -- and is that a craft a defense strategy that's going to try to protect him.
Now you know I I covered the murder trial in California.
I interviewed Simpson afterwards.
-- we struck me as a chronic choir.
And now it's up to the judge to decide who's telling the truth here and who gets the benefit of the doubt in situations like this because look.
In every prison across America every con claims he's innocent and his lawyer botched the case.
Absolutely correct this is something that's very comment when you're defending someone if there's a conviction.
You don't get a conviction you're not gonna hear about it but that if there -- a conviction you value your wrongly convicted you are gonna hear about it.
The issue here is the judge is going to make its determination based on the credibility.
Of both parties in this situation Galanter vs OJ.
-- -- That's my favored argument because it's so ludicrous.
Is that OJ says only I am my lawyer told me to go in there.
And take all of this I mean what lawyer in his right mind.
Would tell a client to do that and certainly wouldn't tell his client oh by the way bring guns pistol -- if you guys.
And kidnap them for a period of time -- no lawyer whatever -- And -- testified indeed he did not -- that type of advice Galanter stated that he told him -- call the police.
But doesn't that -- OJ's credibility because it's so unbelievable.
That's -- yeah.
That's a very very strong markets but the judge is gonna decide it's all the judge's hands you you know lawyer vs Condit.
Nine -- a ten judges are gonna go with a lawyer.
All right Evangeline -- -- good to see you thanks very much like why thank you.
Filter by section