Daily Examiner Interview: O.J. Lawyer Yale Galanter
For those of you pathologically addicted to all things slimy, the latest O.J. Simpson dust-up is the perfect fix. This time around it’s not a legal dream team but a Philly-born attorney in charge of convincing the world that The Juice is not guilty. Currently based in Fort Lauderdale, Yale Galanter graduated from Cherry Hill West High School and, since 2000, has been the personal attorney to one of the most infamous cultural icons in history. The Examiner got Yale to talk about the latest case, his thoughts on the media’s coverage of it, and whether he thought O.J. was guilty of killing his wife and a waiter.
So … how’s your life changed in the past month?
Not as much as you would think. I’ve been representing him since 2000, and every day representing him is a new experience. You know, obviously the last month, because of the charges in Las Vegas, things have been a little more hectic and busy. What most media people don’t know is that, if this guy gets a parking ticket or road rage … it’s the same.
Were you friends with him before you started representing him? I read this one article detailing that you guys embraced.
We’re not friends. I shouldn’t say that … I will tell you the only time I think we’ve ever embraced is when the road rage jury returned the not guilty verdict.
So, are you comfortable being in the limelight like this again?
In terms of the limelight, my day job is to be a criminal defense lawyer. My night job is [being] a frequent television analyst, a talking-head guy. [So] being on television is nothing new.
How does it feel to be representing a person who, in many people’s eyes, is one of the most reprehensible human beings on the planet?
In terms of representing the most infamous human on the planet — I’ll change your word from reprehensible. When O.J. met me in my office, in 2001, I had known for about two weeks that he was interested in me representing him on the road rage case down here. He interviewed me, but I sat on it for two weeks, because I wanted to discuss it with my wife, and more importantly I wanted to discuss it with my mom and dad. Because I knew by me being associated with him, their lives would change. And my father said to me, “Yale, you’re a criminal defense lawyer. This is what you do for a living. This is what guys like you do. They represent infamous people.” O.J. is obviously one of the more infamous people in the world, so I was going to pass. But I took it based on my dad’s advice.
Why were you going to pass?
Oh, I was fine. I don’t mean to gloat, but I had a real successful defense practice. Everything was smooth — [I]’m not a guy that likes a lot of change. [I] knew my life would change forever by representing him. I tell people at cocktail parties, when I die, the obit, it’s going to say “Yale Galanter: O.J. Simpson lawyer.”
So, has your family met him?
No, my family hasn’t met him. I don’t let my family see any of my clients.
But did it cross your mind when he interviewed you as an attorney that this is one of the most “infamous” people on the planet?
Did I realize who I was in the room with? Yes. I was a typical Philly kid. I grew up watching the Eagles lose. My dad and I had season tickets and used to go down to Franklin Field every weekend. So football was very big in my family. [I] was definitely aware of who he was, but I was definitely more enamored with his football career than anything else. I didn’t think, you know, this is a guy who everybody thinks got away with murder. I didn’t think about it. But the football stuff was major.
The murder trial never crossed your mind …
No … [R]ight, wrong or indifferent, I believe in the system. Because I’m a product of the system, I believe in it. And he was found not guilty. To me … nothing else matters. And I was a prosecutor and a criminal defense lawyer. I really believe that. The media, you know, sifts through evidence and decides what gets on the public airwaves … [A]s a product of the criminal justice system, I know that the best people on the planet to judge whether he was guilty or innocent were those 12 jurors, that’s what their sole focus was … and they found him not guilty.
Huh … okay?
I get that reaction a lot, but if you had 25 years in the criminal justice system, you’d react the same way.
I’m sure, but I’m assuming as a person who has watched TV in the last 20 years, you’d have a different reaction as well …
Yeah, but let me tell you something about that. I am one of the few people on the planet who reports the news and is the news. I’m in the position where I do both. When I was doing the Duke lacrosse coverage for NBC and MSNBC, I was actually reporting the news. Now, of course, I am the news. So I know the difference. I’m not being judgmental about the media, [but] somewhere along the way, not necessarily in terms of O.J., … [t]he need to be first became more important than the need to be accurate.
In terms of what?
In terms of how the public digests the news. … [G]ive you an example: When anybody wants to talk to me, they want to talk to me about the O.J. case — the glove, the blood, the Bronco chase. I mean, do you have any idea what percentage of the American public believes he was driving the Bronco?
I’m sure it’s high?
Yeah, most people you talk to have no clue that he was lying in the back seat and A.C. Cowlings was driving the Bronco. But because of the media exposure, people have opinions that are not accurate. All I’m saying is, the jurors had the most accurate information … [T]he nightly news is giving 24 minutes of information on a daily basis, and has three or four minutes devoted to the O.J. case. Well, the O.J. case was eight hours a day. All I’m saying is, somebody had to decide what got into that three or four minutes.
Okay, that’s probably true for a multitude of other topics, but this was a trial that was televised at least eight hours a day. People knew more facts about this case than they did about their own lives.
Am I aware that most of America thinks of my client as a double-murderer? The answer to that question is yes.
But …
Let’s put it this way: Say you’re out at a bar tonight, somebody gives you a dirty look, you defend yourself, get in a fight, and get thrown in jail. You got a job, a family — what are you going to do? You’re going to call a guy like me to get you off.
I understand what your job is. At the same time — this is a very loose comparison — but if you had taken on Charles Manson or somebody with, ahem, an equal level of infamy, it’s got to be different than taking on me when I get in a fight on a Wednesday night.
Not when you do what I do …
Sigh.
The questions you’re asking, what you’re saying is, O.J. Simpson, because of public perception, is not entitled to a good criminal defense attorney.
No, not really. I just don’t believe the minute this guy stepped into your office, your thought was “Wow, this is a guy I idolized playing football …”
I swear to you that’s what my first thought was…
Really.
Yeah.
Really?
Yeah!
Did you have an opinion about the murder trial before the verdict was given?
Did I have opinion … um … I think at the time … I think at the time … yeah. [Four-second pregnant pause.] Trying to think … at the time … [Eight-second delay to count how many years ago it was.] ’95 … yeah, at the time, I, like the rest of America, thought he did it.
So, when he was acquitted, all was forgotten?
No, I mean, I still had my doubts. I would say all was truly forgotten after I got to know him. And of course I was in the unique position to ask him certain questions that nobody else was. As his lawyer, I’ve actually read the entire trial transcript. You know, there was a lot of stuff that never came out.
Oh?
And when I say “never came out,” there was a lot of stuff that was never highlighted. I truly believe in him and I believe in what the jury did.
Of course you do. So, right now, do you hate Harvey Levin and TMZ.com for putting the Las Vegas case out there so much? Have they made his life miserable?
Actually, if you want to know the truth, if it was appropriate, I would send Harvey a bottle of champagne and flowers. And chocolates. He has single-handedly discredited my client’s two main accusers.
The fact that Levin released a portion of the tape that has [one of the accusers] saying “Hey, let me get the number of Lydia at Inside Edition … we’re going to make a fortune off of this …”
So, O.J. was set up again?
All I’m saying is, the next time I see Harvey, I’m definitely taking him to dinner.
PHOTO: Time Magazine
For those of you pathologically addicted to all things slimy, the latest O.J. Simpson dust-up is the perfect fix. This time around it’s not a legal dream team but a Philly-born attorney in charge of convincing the world that The Juice is not guilty. Currently based in Fort Lauderdale, Yale Galanter graduated from Cherry Hill West High School and, since 2000, has been the personal attorney to one of the most infamous cultural icons in history. The Examiner got Yale to talk about the latest case, his thoughts on the media’s coverage of it, and whether he thought O.J. was guilty of killing his wife and a waiter.
So … how’s your life changed in the past month?
Not as much as you would think. I’ve been representing him since 2000, and every day representing him is a new experience. You know, obviously the last month, because of the charges in Las Vegas, things have been a little more hectic and busy. What most media people don’t know is that, if this guy gets a parking ticket or road rage … it’s the same.
Were you friends with him before you started representing him? I read this one article detailing that you guys embraced.
We’re not friends. I shouldn’t say that … I will tell you the only time I think we’ve ever embraced is when the road rage jury returned the not guilty verdict.
So, are you comfortable being in the limelight like this again?
In terms of the limelight, my day job is to be a criminal defense lawyer. My night job is [being] a frequent television analyst, a talking-head guy. [So] being on television is nothing new.
How does it feel to be representing a person who, in many people’s eyes, is one of the most reprehensible human beings on the planet?
In terms of representing the most infamous human on the planet — I’ll change your word from reprehensible. When O.J. met me in my office, in 2001, I had known for about two weeks that he was interested in me representing him on the road rage case down here. He interviewed me, but I sat on it for two weeks, because I wanted to discuss it with my wife, and more importantly I wanted to discuss it with my mom and dad. Because I knew by me being associated with him, their lives would change. And my father said to me, “Yale, you’re a criminal defense lawyer. This is what you do for a living. This is what guys like you do. They represent infamous people.” O.J. is obviously one of the more infamous people in the world, so I was going to pass. But I took it based on my dad’s advice.
Why were you going to pass?
Oh, I was fine. I don’t mean to gloat, but I had a real successful defense practice. Everything was smooth — [I]’m not a guy that likes a lot of change. [I] knew my life would change forever by representing him. I tell people at cocktail parties, when I die, the obit, it’s going to say “Yale Galanter: O.J. Simpson lawyer.”
So, has your family met him?
No, my family hasn’t met him. I don’t let my family see any of my clients.
But did it cross your mind when he interviewed you as an attorney that this is one of the most “infamous” people on the planet?
Did I realize who I was in the room with? Yes. I was a typical Philly kid. I grew up watching the Eagles lose. My dad and I had season tickets and used to go down to Franklin Field every weekend. So football was very big in my family. [I] was definitely aware of who he was, but I was definitely more enamored with his football career than anything else. I didn’t think, you know, this is a guy who everybody thinks got away with murder. I didn’t think about it. But the football stuff was major.
The murder trial never crossed your mind …
No … [R]ight, wrong or indifferent, I believe in the system. Because I’m a product of the system, I believe in it. And he was found not guilty. To me … nothing else matters. And I was a prosecutor and a criminal defense lawyer. I really believe that. The media, you know, sifts through evidence and decides what gets on the public airwaves … [A]s a product of the criminal justice system, I know that the best people on the planet to judge whether he was guilty or innocent were those 12 jurors, that’s what their sole focus was … and they found him not guilty.
Huh … okay?
I get that reaction a lot, but if you had 25 years in the criminal justice system, you’d react the same way.
I’m sure, but I’m assuming as a person who has watched TV in the last 20 years, you’d have a different reaction as well …
Yeah, but let me tell you something about that. I am one of the few people on the planet who reports the news and is the news. I’m in the position where I do both. When I was doing the Duke lacrosse coverage for NBC and MSNBC, I was actually reporting the news. Now, of course, I am the news. So I know the difference. I’m not being judgmental about the media, [but] somewhere along the way, not necessarily in terms of O.J., … [t]he need to be first became more important than the need to be accurate.
In terms of what?
In terms of how the public digests the news. … [G]ive you an example: When anybody wants to talk to me, they want to talk to me about the O.J. case — the glove, the blood, the Bronco chase. I mean, do you have any idea what percentage of the American public believes he was driving the Bronco?
I’m sure it’s high?
Yeah, most people you talk to have no clue that he was lying in the back seat and A.C. Cowlings was driving the Bronco. But because of the media exposure, people have opinions that are not accurate. All I’m saying is, the jurors had the most accurate information … [T]he nightly news is giving 24 minutes of information on a daily basis, and has three or four minutes devoted to the O.J. case. Well, the O.J. case was eight hours a day. All I’m saying is, somebody had to decide what got into that three or four minutes.
Okay, that’s probably true for a multitude of other topics, but this was a trial that was televised at least eight hours a day. People knew more facts about this case than they did about their own lives.
Am I aware that most of America thinks of my client as a double-murderer? The answer to that question is yes.
But …
Let’s put it this way: Say you’re out at a bar tonight, somebody gives you a dirty look, you defend yourself, get in a fight, and get thrown in jail. You got a job, a family — what are you going to do? You’re going to call a guy like me to get you off.
I understand what your job is. At the same time — this is a very loose comparison — but if you had taken on Charles Manson or somebody with, ahem, an equal level of infamy, it’s got to be different than taking on me when I get in a fight on a Wednesday night.
Not when you do what I do …
Sigh.
The questions you’re asking, what you’re saying is, O.J. Simpson, because of public perception, is not entitled to a good criminal defense attorney.
No, not really. I just don’t believe the minute this guy stepped into your office, your thought was “Wow, this is a guy I idolized playing football …”
I swear to you that’s what my first thought was…
Really.
Yeah.
Really?
Yeah!
Did you have an opinion about the murder trial before the verdict was given?
Did I have opinion … um … I think at the time … I think at the time … yeah. [Four-second pregnant pause.] Trying to think … at the time … [Eight-second delay to count how many years ago it was.] ’95 … yeah, at the time, I, like the rest of America, thought he did it.
So, when he was acquitted, all was forgotten?
No, I mean, I still had my doubts. I would say all was truly forgotten after I got to know him. And of course I was in the unique position to ask him certain questions that nobody else was. As his lawyer, I’ve actually read the entire trial transcript. You know, there was a lot of stuff that never came out.
Oh?
And when I say “never came out,” there was a lot of stuff that was never highlighted. I truly believe in him and I believe in what the jury did.
Of course you do. So, right now, do you hate Harvey Levin and TMZ.com for putting the Las Vegas case out there so much? Have they made his life miserable?
Actually, if you want to know the truth, if it was appropriate, I would send Harvey a bottle of champagne and flowers. And chocolates. He has single-handedly discredited my client’s two main accusers.
The fact that Levin released a portion of the tape that has [one of the accusers] saying “Hey, let me get the number of Lydia at Inside Edition … we’re going to make a fortune off of this …”
So, O.J. was set up again?
All I’m saying is, the next time I see Harvey, I’m definitely taking him to dinner.
PHOTO: Time Magazine
A reader submits these keen observations from last night’s Phillies game, which suggests some enterprising individuals have found a loophole in some of the 
Do not throw yourself under a moving bus just yet: Last night’s 5-2 Phillies win staved off heartbreak for one more night. It’s true that starting pitcher Kyle Lohse looked spooked the whole time he was out there, tossing up change-up after change-up, and after the Braves’ mammoth first baseman Mark Teixeira launched one over the Walt Whitman Bridge, the meltdown seemed inevitable. But it never happened. In fact, Lohse’s notoriously shaky late innings actually turned out OK. 
Everywhere you look right now there are protesters. If it’s not casinos, it’s foie gras. And this week pro-goose-torturing restaurateurs are fighting back against the hypersensitive masses pushing for the City Council ban on foie gras. 
The Phillies, once again, 
Anti-casino stormtroopers are braying “Victory!” after City Council canceled its September 21st public hearing on bills related to SugarHouse’s casino application. A post on 