TODAY | May 18, 2013
>> to hear if a judge in las vegas will grant him a new trial. simpson blames his 2008 armed robbery and kidnapping conviction on his former lawyer, saying yale galanter did his job so badly, his conviction should be thrown out. gallaanter defended himself at a hearing on friday. lisa bloom joins us.
>> good morning, lester.
>> more than an awkward exchange. we think of that attorney/client privilege. in this case, simpson had to waive that, and galanter throws him under the bus. did i characterize that correctly?
>> absolutely right. the most stunning moment in the courtroom yesterday. yale galanter had to ultimately say that o.j. simpson told him that he knew that his boys as he put it allegedly, were bringing guns into the hotel room . that was the key issue in that trial, that o.j. had always denied.
>> o.j. also makes the case that his attorney in this case, galanter, didn't present him with some plea options that the prosecution had offered that would have limited his amount of jail time. if true, that not a strong avenue of appeal to say your lawyer didn't represent you properly?
>> it sure is. but a couple point. it's a he said/he said dispute. will you believe o.j., when he's accusing his lawyer of not relaying plea offers, or the attorney who says i absolutely did that and o.j. would not accept the plea offer that included jail time. that o.j. insisted on probation only. as an attorney, i'm also confused as to why this attorney wouldn't have put that in writing. any significant moments between an attorney and client are usually memorialized in writing, like a fee agreement, which in this case was not reduced to writing. $500,000 exchanged hands and no writing substantiating it.
>> awas there a conversation, if it's okay to do this, and if that constitutes a conflict of interest. does it?
>> well, that's right. look, if yale galanter told him, sure, go ahead, take a couple of friends, take a gun, go in, kidnap people, threaten them, and take items, that would be a big problem. ith hait's hard to believe any attorney would give that advice. there is no writing, no smoking gun supporting o.j.'s position. i think this is really a hail mary pass .
>> how often do these cases succeed? you pick a lawyer, go to trial, lose? is it common for the defendant to say it's the lawyer's fault? and how many of these cases go in favor of the defendant?
>> he's probably more likely to win powerball. this is really a long, long, long shot, lester. o.j. has already lost all of his appeals. he's entitled to this habeas corpus proceeding, but it's unlikely he will prevail.
>> this is not an appeal of the case itself?
>> right. this is saying his attorney screwed up so badly that o.j. should be freed. utt a very difficult legal standard. you have to show that the attorney made some mistakes. that those mistakes were so significant that o.j. would have been acquitted had they not happened. that's a tough legal standard to me.
>> might need to buy the lottery ticket after all. 6$600 million doesn't go as far in jail as it used to.