O.J. Simpson is opening yet a new case, but it’s less of a media event than before. He is claiming that his conviction in 2008 for armed robbery was the result not of poor judgment, but of poor legal advice from former lawyer Yale Galanter. His present case will attempt to prove that Galanter had a conflict of interest that amounted to insufficient representation of Simpson, and ultimately led to his conviction into prison for 9 to 33 years.
Simpson meanwhile has plumped up a bit – the glove certainly would fit now! – and grayed out; he seems to have aged and mellowed in prison.
“It was my stuff,” he said regarding the memorabilia items he was convicted of taking in armed robbery, as reported by ESPN. “I followed what I thought was the law. My lawyer told me I couldn’t break into a guys’ room. I didn’t break into anybody’s room. I didn’t try to muscle the guys. The guys had my stuff, even though they claimed they didn’t steal it.”
“Mr. Galanter advised me not to testify,” Simpson complained.
“You made a decision to follow Mr. Galanter’s advice, rather than [co-counsel Gabriel] Grasso’s, and not testify,” asked H. Leon Simon, attorney for the state.
“Yes,” said Simpson.
Simpson also clarified that while he might have inadvertently taken some things that weren’t his, there were no guns involved. “There was no talk of guns at all,” he said, adding that there he saw no guns throughout the whole confrontation.
Regarding Galanter, Simpson said “he was my guy,” but also said Galanter advised he was within his rights to take back his possession if there was no violence or trespassing. In recalling that he saw some of his stuff in the hotel room where the dealers had his stuff, he said that his voice cracked when he recognized his items.
“Look at this stuff. Some of the stuff I didn’t really realize was gone. These were things I hadn’t seen in 10 years,” he said, “You know, you get a little emotional about it.”
Simpson’s trial will have no jury, but will be determined by District Judge Linda Marie Bell.