The post mortem on truTV (formerly CourtTV) is that Simpson's lawyers did a great job for him and that the judge did a great job following the letter of the law. Galanter's saying he's delighted because he was afraid of a much longer sentence. But then he's also saying that (a) the judge was excellent and smart and wise and (b) that he expects to win appeals because he believes the whole verdict was wrong. Just how is that possible? If the verdict should be overturned, doesn't that mean the judge screwed up?
As I'm writing this, Galanter is saying that he expects Simpson's first parole hearing should "do well for him." That's in nine years. He's also saying that this case was lost after jury selection because he didn't get to challenge some people he wanted to challenge.
I dunno. If I'd just been sentenced to a minimum of nine years in prison (with a possible maximum of 33), I don't think I'd be happy to have my lawyer out there suggesting that's a low sentence, given what I did, and that he never really had a chance to win the case for me.