All language subtitles for Justice.on.Trial.S01E05.1080p.WEB.h264-EDITH

Dispatch,
8-12 at pool hall.

Signs of forced
entry. I'm going in.

Police! Anyone in here?

Dispatch, 8-12. Pool
hall clear. Coming out.

Oh!

I heard the sirens, saw
the lights and the doors.

Is everything okay?

At 5:30 in the morning?

What can I say,
I'm an early riser.

Looks like someone broke
in and tripped the alarm.

You see anything?

I did see a guy walking away
down the alley a minute ago

with a big coat on.

What kind of coat?

You know, like a
big trench coat.

Looked like he was carrying
half the bar in it.

Have you ever seen him before?

Sure have. He's a
regular, like me.

His name's Clarence Gideon.

I'm Judy Sheindlin. Before
I was a judge on TV,

I was a judge in New
York City for 15 years

and a lawyer for 17
years before that.

While serving on both
sides of the bench,

I learned that justice doesn't
always end up feeling...

just.

Sometimes, the impact of one
decision by a police officer,

a lawyer, or even a judge, can
change the way justice is delivered.

We're going to demonstrate
this by taking landmark cases

from actual crimes
committed by real people.

And we'll recreate them
with our trial lawyers,

and yours truly as
the trial judge.

While we're not going to
recreate the trials verbatim,

all the court's ultimate
decisions are accurate.

It will be up to you to decide
whether the case was fair

and the outcome just.

Real
cases, actual lawyers,

surprising verdicts.

Justice on Trial.

This episode of Justice on Trial
focuses on the due process clause

of the 14th Amendment
to the Constitution.

And a small crime which would forever
changed the legal system in America.

Is it fair for a poor person with no
legal training or formal education

be required to defend themselves
against criminal charges?

Until 1963, that was
the law in this country.

If you were accused of a state crime
and couldn't afford an attorney,

you were out of luck.

If you lost, you might
be going to jail.

Let's see how defending
himself worked out for the man

who was arrested and accused of
burglarizing the Florida pool hall,

Clarence Gideon.

Your Honor, I have a question.

Mr. Gideon, you can't just blurt out
questions in the middle of court.

We have procedures here.

I'm sorry, Your Honor.
That's kind of my point.

I have no idea what
I'm doing here.

Can't I get a lawyer
to represent me?

Of course you can. We have a
list of them, if you'd like.

Well, I can't afford a lawyer.

I thought you could give me one.

Your Honor, Betts v.
Brady clearly states...

I am keenly aware of what Betts
v. Brady states, counselor.

Mr. Gideon, I'm sorry,

but I cannot appoint counsel
to represent you in this case.

Under the laws of
the state of Florida,

the only time a court can appoint
counsel to represent a defendant

is if that person has been
charged with a capital offense.

Like murder, for instance.

Well, that don't seem fair.

I thought the
Supreme Court said...

No, Mr. Gideon, the
Supreme Court says

in the aforementioned
Betts v. Brady case,

that the appointment of counsel
is not a fundamental right

of the defendant in a state case

unless the accused is mentally
or intellectually incompetent.

Are you mentally or intellectually
incompetent, Mr. Gideon?

No, of course not.

Excellent. Let's
proceed then, shall we?

Please, state your name.

Henry Cook.

Let me direct your attention
to the night of June third,

at approximately 5:30
A.M. Where were you?

I was in the alley next to
the Bay Harbor Pool Hall.

Did you notice anything
unusual at that time?

Yeah. I, uh, noticed a guy
walking down the alley,

kinda quick, with a big overcoat on and
a bunch of bottles sticking out of it.

Can you identify the person
you saw here in this courtroom?

Yeah. That guy over there.

Clarence Gideon.

Objection.

On what grounds?

I didn't do it. He's lying.

Mr. Gideon, that is not
the basis for an objection.

If you continue these outbursts, I
will find you in contempt of court.

Strike that from the record.

Let's proceed.

Thank you, Your Honor. What
happened next, Mr. Cook?

I saw Gideon get into
a cab driven by Preston Bray.

It was then that I noticed
an alarm bell was ringing.

I followed the sound to
the front of the pool hall,

and I saw the door
was all busted up.

I was about to go into the
bar to have a look-see,

when the cop came out.

This was Officer Duell Pitts?

Yes, that's right. I told
him everything I saw.

No further questions,
Your Honor.

Do you wish to cross-examine
the witness, Mr. Gideon?

Yes, Your Honor.

So, 5:30 in the morning
it was pretty dark, right?

Objection. Leading the witness.

Sustained.

Mr. Gideon, you can't have the
answers you want in your questions.

Okay. Uh...

How dark was it?

It was light enough to see you.

How do you know it was me?

I've spent enough time around you in
the pool hall, I know how you walk.

And the hair color matches too.

Well, a lot of people
have brown hair.

Objection. Not a question.

Sustained. You can't make
statements, Mr. Gideon.

You have to interview the
witness with questions.

Are you positive you saw
me and not someone else?

Positive.

Do you have any further
questions, Mr. Gideon?

Any questions I ask him, he's
just gonna say it was me.

Objection.

Forget it. No further questions.

How's it going, Pres?

Good, man.

Good. You work as a
cab driver, right?

Yep, that's right.

And I ride in your
cab a lot, right?

Objection. Leading the witness.

Sustained. Mr. Gideon...

Got it, got it, Judge.

How often do I ride in your cab?

I'd say at least four
to five times a week.

And that doesn't count the
times we end up back at my place

having coffee after work, so.

So, you would know if there was anything
out of the ordinary with me, right?

Yes, definitely.

And was there anything out of the ordinary
on the early morning of June third?

Nope. I didn't see anything
out of the ordinary.

And did you see wine bottles
sticking out of my jacket?

No.

No, I definitely didn't
see anything like that.

No further questions.

Mr. Bray, is it fair to say

that you and Clarence
Gideon are friends?

Yes,
that's fair to say.

Were you aware that your
friend was arrested and charged

with a very serious felony of
burglary of the Bay Harbor Pool Hall?

Uh-huh, yeah.

And did your friend tell you
he needed your help today?

Yes.

He was gonna
call you as a witness.

Obviously, yes.

Hm. So, if you had testified
that you had seen your friend

with a bunch of wine bottles
sticking out of his overcoat,

it'd probably be, uh,
pretty bad for his case.

Right?

Any objections, Mr. Gideon?

Um, no.

You may answer, Mr. Bray.

I guess it wouldn't
help his case, no.

One more question.

What did Clarence Gideon say to you
when he got into your cab that night?

Well, he... he said

not to tell anyone that I
had seen him that night.

-But...
-No further questions.

Any redirect, Mr. Gideon?

Redirect, Your Honor?

Yes, you are allowed to briefly further
question the witness, if you wish.

Um, no, thank you, Judge.

Mr. Gideon, do you have any
other witnesses to call?

No, Your Honor.

You are not going to
testify on your own behalf?

Would that guy get
to question me too?

Yes, he would.

Then no, definitely
not, Your Honor.

Has the jury
reached a verdict?

We have, Your Honor.

What say you?

To the count
of felony burglary,

we the jury, find the
defendant, Clarence Gideon...

guilty.

As you've seen, having to defend
himself didn't work out very well

for Clarence Gideon, and he was
sentenced to five years in prison.

But despite having only
an eighth grade education,

he came up with a legal
argument for an appeal

to the Supreme Court
of the United States.

To whom
it may concern...

I've been reading the
Constitution while in prison,

particularly, the
14th Amendment.

It says in there that no state

can deny me due process

without equal
protection of the law.

Well, I'm a man who wasn't
able to afford a lawyer,

and they told me I
couldn't have one.

So, I had to represent myself.

That doesn't seem like
equal protection to me.

I should get due process,
even if I'm poor, right?

Now, I'm doing five years
for a crime I didn't commit.

And I'll bet a good lawyer
would've proven I'm innocent.

Can you help me? Signed, a
fellow American, Clarence Gideon.

The Supreme Court agreed
to hear Gideon's argument

that his conviction
was unconstitutional.

Remember, though, the Supreme Court
had already ruled Betts v. Brady

about 20 years earlier
that in most cases,

states did not have to provide an attorney
for those who couldn't afford one.

We're going to use our
attorneys and our judges

to show you how the question was
answered for Clarence Gideon.

-Mr. Bakman, you may proceed.
-Thank you, Your Honor.

Our system of criminal justice

differs from every other
country in the world

because one, we have a
presumption of innocence,

and two, we have a
guarantee of a fair trial.

And the way we guarantee
that precept is

we don't refuse
criminal defense counsel

to a poor person, and set them loose in
a courtroom, representing themselves,

when there is a seasoned
prosecutor on the other side.

That's what happened
to Clarence Gideon.

If in fact, we want to
stand by our Bill of Rights,

which guarantees the right to
an attorney in a criminal case,

then it's time to do
away with Betts v. Brady,

and let all criminal defendants
have the right to an attorney

so that they can level the playing field
with seasoned prosecutors like this.

Thank you.

Mr. Mentzer.

Thank you, Your Honor. This very
court decided this very issue

in the case of Betts v. Brady.

And this court decided that yes, a
criminal defendant accused of a crime

does deserve to have a
lawyer paid for by the state

if he can't afford one himself.

However, the court was mindful
of the overwhelming burden

that the taxpayer would have
if every single defendant

accused of a crime had a lawyer
paid for him by the state,

and they decided that
there were certain cases

that would not have the protection
of a lawyer paid for by the state.

There were checks in place to
ensure that a criminal defendant

who couldn't afford a lawyer
would still have a fair trial.

This is the very type of a case
that did not guarantee a defendant

a right to a lawyer
paid for by the state.

And that's why I'm gonna ask
this court to uphold that verdict

and not place the heavy
burden on the taxpayer

that Mr. Bakman is
asking this court to do.

-Thank you.
-Thank you, counsel. Judge Levy?

Thank you. Mr. Mentzer,

checks and balances is what
you just told us were in place

according to this court's
decision in Betts v. Brady

to the extent that a criminal defendant
was unable to successfully defend himself.

That there were
checks and balances,

and that the trial judge
would be able to help.

That is correct.

I will tell you, I don't
know about my colleagues,

but my review of the trial
below, suggested anything other

than a trial judge trying
to help out Mr. Gideon

who, with an eighth grade education
presented no theory of defense,

challenged no jurors,
and conducted, at best,

a limited cross-examination
of the number one eyewitness.

And what is your
job as a prosecutor?

To present the evidence.

Your role, sir, is
to seek justice.

And in your role as a
prosecutor in seeking justice,

would you agree that it would be
more likely that justice is served

when a criminal defendant
with an eighth grade education

is provided with a lawyer to
help him present his case?

I would agree that the likelihood
of getting a better defense

is higher with a defense lawyer.

But there are other issues
at play here, Judge.

It seems to me that you would rather
the taxpayer just open up his wallet

any time some habitual career
criminal wants to commit crimes,

he snaps his fingers, you're
gonna pay for another lawyer.

Well, I'm looking at that. I'm looking
at the Sixth Amendment right now,

and the Sixth Amendment
guarantees the right to counsel.

You agree with that, yes?

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the
right to counsel in federal court.

So, what you're really
saying, Mr. Mentzer,

is that this is
a state law case.

Is that the US Supreme
Court has no business

telling the state of Florida
what a fair trial looks like.

-Yes.
-Thank you.

-Mr. Bakman.
-Yes, Your Honor.

Please explain. Why do you
believe that this court

should overrule Betts v. Brady?

Because due process,

as applied to the states
through the 14th Amendment

requires the right to counsel.
Denial of the right to counsel

for all classes of crimes in
state court is discriminatory.

So, what you're saying
is that the due process

that would otherwise apply
in the federal system,

should likewise apply in the state
of Florida where Mr. Mentzer is from?

Absolutely, Your Honor, and anything
other than that shocks the conscience.

In order to enforce the
Constitution of the United States

if counsel is necessary
to guarantee those rights,

then the individual should have
the right to appointed counsel.

Thank you. I have
nothing further.

-Thank you. Mr. Mentzer.
-Yes, Judge.

You raised an issue before, and
that is that state defendants

don't have the same rights as
those charged in a federal court.

And that's your
position in here.

My position is more of a
financial scale argument,

where we should provide a lawyer

to criminally indigent criminal
defendants in most cases.

But not all cases.
Where does it end?

It may not end, provided that when
someone's life and liberty are at stake,

that we give them what they need
in order to protect and defend it.

And yes, I get it. There's
an expense in all of this.

And so, with that expense,
where does the balance end?

It should end right
in the beginning.

The balance weighs in favor of your
life and your liberty, Mr. Mentzer.

So, I'm gonna ask Mr. Bakman
a couple questions.

Why don't you have
a seat. Mr. Bakman?

Do you know of clients
that have been incarcerated

-after a conviction after trial?
-Yes.

Do a number of them
spend time in prison

awaiting the decision to
have their case reversed?

-Yes.
-Okay.

And that being the case, then their life
and liberty is being taken from them

while their incompetence
to represent them self

is being reviewed by
an appellate court.

That's what would happen based
on Mr. Mentzer's position.

Would that be correct or not?

Correct, Your Honor. It would be
a shock to the justice system.

Can we extend
that Sixth Amendment right

to individuals who
cannot afford counsel

and are charged in the
state court with a crime?

To not do so, Judge, it would
serve as a grave injustice

to these poor individuals
who cannot afford counsel

but want counsel.

I think that based on
what we've discussed here,

I don't have any
further questions.

-Thanks, Your Honor.
-Thank you, Mr. Bakman.

Mr. Bakman, please,
remain where you are.

What are the limits of the
process that are required here?

Because part of a
lawyer's duty to represent

means doing factual
investigation, hiring experts.

Perhaps, in some jurisdictions,

counsel might be well advised
to hire a jury consultant.

Depending on the
case, absolutely.

So, I just want to be
clear about your argument.

Your argument is that
these additional expenses

should be incurred, the
Constitution requires them,

irrespective of the impact
on American taxpayers.

Law-abiding folks have just got to
suck it up. Is that your position?

It is my position in a direct
answer. But I'd like to explain.

Please.

Again, I go back to the concept
of our criminal justice system.

And that is, let's ensure that
the playing field is level.

So that truly innocent
people are not...

Ah-ah-ah, it doesn't just
apply to truly innocent people.

So, what you're essentially saying is
that there might be some innocent folks.

But taxpayers, you must assume the
burden of a full and complete defense

for whatever poor child
molester, poor murderer,

indigent person who has
killed and harmed communities,

we still have to pay for that.

If the taxpayer wants to live in a country
where there are Constitutional guarantees,

then they're going to
have to pay for it.

I appreciate your candor and being so
straightforward about your position.

-Thank you, Mr. Bakman.
-Thank you.

-Mr. Mentzer, please.
-Yes.

Indulge me. What does
due process mean to you?

It means that before someone could
take away your life or your liberty,

that you have to have a system in place
to ensure that it was done properly.

And that system in place
includes certain key protections

that are fundamental to the
American notion of a fair trial.

-Yes?
-I would agree with that.

The right to read what the
other side says about you.

Yes. But that's not all the
evidence in a criminal case.

What
if you are illiterate

as roughly 14% of the
American population is?

What does due process
mean to those folks?

That would be a
special circumstances

that would require the
state to pay for a lawyer

for an illiterate defendant
charged with a case.

What is the difference between absolute
illiteracy and functional illiteracy?

What if someone can only
read to a third grade level?

I don't believe an eighth-grade education
doesn't preclude Clarence Gideon

from knowing that the acquaintance
is saying, I saw you...

I will respectfully submit to you,
sir, that I bet you like your odds

against illiterate people. I have
nothing further for you, sir.

Thank you very much.
We're gonna retire to deliberate.

Gideon was charged in a Florida
state court with a felony,

appearing without an
attorney and without funds.

Mr. Gideon proceeded without counsel,
interposed a bare-bones defense,

and was convicted
after a jury trial.

The Sixth Amendment of the
United States Constitution

provides in pertinent
part that a defendant

charged with a capital offense in
federal court has a right to counsel.

As clear as its application
to the federal courts,

its applicability to
state criminal proceedings

has been a continuing source
of controversy and litigation.

We cannot emphasize enough
how offensive and egregious

to the idea of fundamental fairness it
is to continue to allow poor persons

charged with crime to stand
alone before the state tribunal

deciding their fate without
the benefit of counsel.

We are joined by 22 states
as friends of the court

who argue that Betts was an anachronism,
and it should be now overruled.

We agree. Precedent, reason,
common sense and reflection

require us to recognize
that without an attorney,

an accused could likely be
signing his own death warrant.

The judgment is reversed and the cause
remanded to the trial court of Florida.

So, the Supreme Court
struck down Betts v. Brady.

And in doing so, they effectively
created the public defender system

we now have in every state.

Today, everyone who's put on trial
has the right to an attorney.

Clarence Gideon won
his Supreme Court case,

but he still had to go back to
court to try to win his freedom...

this time, represented by a
lawyer who knew what he was doing.

Now, you get to be the jury.

Watch what happens when the same witness
testimony is handled by a savvy attorney.

Then you decide if Clarence
Gideon is guilty, or not guilty.

Ladies and gentlemen
of the jury,

this is the case of the
People of the state of Florida

against Clarence
Gideon, the defendant.

The defendant is charged
with breaking and entering

into a business, and stealing property
while in the course of that break-in.

It is the burden of the People to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that Mr. Gideon
committed those crimes.

At the conclusion of all the evidence,
I will give you a jury instruction

and you will be asked to deliberate
to determine whether or not

the People have
sustained their burden,

which I again repeat, is
beyond a reasonable doubt

that the defendant committed
the crime of burglary.

Are the People ready?

The People are
ready, Your Honor.

-Defense ready?
-Defense is ready, Your Honor.

Note your appearance.

For the great state of
Florida, I'm Dan Mentzer.

And Larry Bakman, on behalf of
Clarence Earl Gideon, Your Honor.

You wish to make an
opening statement?

-I do, Your Honor.
-You may proceed.

Clarence Gideon is
guilty of burglary.

That man sitting right over there
broke into the Bay Harbor Pool Room

on June third, in the early morning
hours, and he stole property.

The case really is that simple.

Now, whether Mr. Gideon
went to trial himself

or whether he has the help of a seasoned
defense attorney like Larry Bakman,

he's still guilty of burglary.

And at the end of this
case, we're gonna ask you

to examine the evidence and find that
man guilty of burglary. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mentzer.
Mr. Bakman?

Thank you, Your Honor. This
is an opening statement.

Opening statement is really a
preview of coming attractions.

And what you're going
to see in this trial

is the prosecution's
case falling apart.

Their case hinges on really, the
testimony of one individual, Henry Cook.

And at the end of the day,
I'm going to ask you to return

with a verdict of not
guilty in this case,

because the People have failed to
prove every element of the offense

beyond a reasonable doubt
to a moral certainty.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bakman. Mr. Mentzer,
call your first witness, please.

The prosecution
calls Henry Cook.

-You may inquire.
-Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Cook, I'm gonna call
your attention to June third

at approximately 5:30 A.M.

Where were you at that
date at that time?

I was on the street in Bay Harbor,
near the Bay Harbor Pool Room.

Did you notice anything unusual

while you were in the vicinity
of the Bay Harbor Pool Room?

Yes. I actually saw Gideon
come out the door of the pool hall.

What was Mr. Gideon holding,
if anything, in his hands, that morning?

He was holding some wine in his
hands, and I also had noticed

that his pockets were bulging, but
I couldn't see what was inside.

Now, what did you do after seeing
Mr. Gideon behind the pool hall

with bulging pockets
and wine in his hands?

Well, I noticed he was walking
down towards the drugstore,

which after he got
into a phone booth.

After a few minutes, he
got out of the phone booth.

He waited a little bit,
and then a cab drove up.

And he got into the
cab and it drove away.

Now, were you able to observe
the cab driver who drove him away?

Yes, it was a gentlemen
named Preston Bray.

Hey, Pres.

Hey, Clarence, what's up, buddy?

Oh, I had it going tonight at
nine-ball. Ran Cook off the table.

Time to celebrate.

Oh, nice.

I'll have some of that in
my coffee when I get off.

Where to?

Panama City, my man.

Hey, Pres, things are still
rocky with me and the old lady.

So, don't tell anyone you
seen me tonight, all right?

Yeah, I got you.

Why would tonight be any different
than any other night, right?

You said it.

Now, what
did you do next?

I walked back to the pool room,
and I saw it had been broken into.

Did you speak with the officer
that showed up that morning

-at the pool room when you were there?
-Yes, sir.

-And did you tell him what you saw?
-I told him everything I saw.

-Thank you so much, Mr. Cook.
-Thank you.

-Mr. Bakman.
-Thanks, Your Honor.

So, Mr. Cook, this isn't your
first time testifying to a jury

in a case against my
client, is it, sir?

That's correct.

Now, in this particular case, sir,
you claim that you happened to be

outside the pool hall
at 5:30 in the morning?

-Yes?
-Correct.

You had been given a drive by
your friends from 60 miles away.

And you all parked in
front of the pool hall

instead of being driven two blocks
away where you lived. Correct?

Correct.

And the reason your friends and you
parked two blocks away from home

was because you're the ones who were
stealing from inside the pool hall.

Absolutely not.

Well, the police
arrived later that day.

And you claim to have told the
police that you had no doubt

that it was Clarence Gideon outside
the pool hall. Is that right?

No doubt.

And you in fact lied to
the police, did you not,

when you identified my client?

No, I did not.

Well, later that morning,
sir, you had a conversation

with the grocer that was nearby
the pool hall. Is that right?

Yes, I did.

You had a conversation with
Mr. Henderson, the grocer in the area,

and you admitted to Mr. Henderson
you weren't sure who you saw

outside the pool
hall. Yes or no?

I didn't want to be
the talk of the town.

So, the answer to
Mr. Henderson's question

as to who you saw outside the
pool hall was, "I'm not certain."

Do I have that right? Yes or no?

-Yes, but I said...
-Thank you.

Nothing further.

You're excused, sir.

Next witness, please.

The prosecution calls
Detective Duell Pitts.

You may inquire, Mr. Mentzer.

Thank you, Your Honor. Detective,
I'm gonna ask you some questions

about the morning of June third.
Were you working that day?

Yes, I was the Detective
Investigator on duty that morning,

assigned to investigate any
felonies reported on that day.

Were there any felonies reported
that day that you investigated?

Yes, I received a call that
there was a burglary committed

in the Panama City
Bay Harbor area.

What did you observe when you went to
the Bay Harbor Pool Room that morning?

The cigarette machine was
busted open from the front.

The jukebox machine was also broken
into with a money bag lying next to it.

Detective, did
you, in your investigation

conduct an inventory search with the
owner of the place, Irish Strickland?

Yes, I spoke with the
owner, Irish Strickland.

He gave me a detailed list
of what he says was stolen.

What did Irish Strickland tell you was
removed from his pool hall that morning?

Twelve bottles of Coke, twelve cans
of beer and four fifths of wine.

Did Mr. Strickland tell you that any
money was removed from his pool hall?

Yes, he believed that $60 in
coins was taken from the jukebox

and $5 in coins from
the cigarette machine.

Detective, were
you given some information

-that led you to arrest Clarence Gideon?
-Yes.

And when you arrested Mr. Gideon, did
you search him incident to that arrest?

Yes.

And did you recover any
money from his pockets?

Yes, he had $25.28 in quarters, dimes,
nickels and pennies in his pockets.

Thank you, Detective.

Mr. Bakman.

Thanks, Your Honor.
So, Detective,

you've been doing this job
for awhile, is that right?

Yes, that's correct.

And so, in terms of the person
that places my client, Mr. Gideon,

outside the pool hall, that
was Henry Cook. Correct?

That's correct.

And tell me. You then,

went to locate my
client, Mr. Gideon. Yes?

Yes, that's right.

-You found him at a bar, correct?
-That's correct.

And tell me, when you found Mr. Gideon,
did he have 12 cans of soda with him?

No, he did not.

-You find any cans of beer with him?
-No, I did not.

So, what I want to
ask you, Detective, is

apart from Henry
Cook's testimony,

you had absolutely no
evidence tying my client

to being inside the
pool hall. Did you?

No, I did not.

No further questions.

Witness is excused.
Thank you very much.

Any other witnesses,
Mr. Mentzer?

No, Your Honor, the
state of Florida rests.

Thank you,
sir. Mr. Bakman?

Thank you, Your Honor. I'm
gonna call Preston Bray.

-You may inquire.
-Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Bray, what do you do for a living,
if you'd tell the jury, please?

I'm a cab driver.

And do you know Mr. Gideon
who's seated to my left?

-Yes.
-And how do you know him?

Well, I, uh, give him cab rides,

and we have coffee at my
place almost every day.

And so, directing your
attention to June third.

Did you give Mr. Gideon
a cab ride somewhere?

Uh, yes, I did.

All right. So, let me
focus on what you observed

when you saw Mr. Gideon
that morning.

Did he have any cans
of soda with him?

No, he did not.

-Did he have any cans of beer?
-Nope.

Did he have a bottle of wine that
was partially consumed with him?

No, he did not.

And tell me, did the pants look like they
were holding an immense amount of coins?

No.

Mr. Bray,
tell the jury,

how were you paid by
Mr. Gideon for the cab ride?

With, uh, six quarters.

I have nothing further.

-Any questions?
-Oh, yes, Your Honor.

-You may inquire.
-Thank you, Your Honor.

I just want to make sure I
have this straight, Mr. Bray.

This man seated in court, the
defendant Clarence Gideon,

-is your close friend?
-Yes, he is.

Now, you learned
that he was charged

with burglarizing the Bay
Harbor Pool Room, right?

Mm-hmm, yeah.

And he asked you to testify in
court to help him, didn't he?

I assume, yeah.

And knowing that he was accused of
leaving the Bay Harbor Pool Room

with a bottle of wine,
you knew that by saying

that you didn't see any wine in his hand
that you would be of help to him. Right?

Yes. I'm sure that's
why he asked me.

And you know that by saying that you
didn't see pockets bulging with coins,

that was gonna be helpful testimony
to getting your friend Clarence Gideon

-off of this case. Right?
-I suppose so, yes.

Your friend Clarence Gideon, before
he left your cab that morning said,

"If anyone asks you
where you let me off,

you don't know. You
haven't seen me." Right?

That's... that's
what he said, yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Bray.

Redirect, Your Honor?

You may inquire.

Thank you, Your Honor.
Mr. Bray, I want to ask you,

you've known Mr. Gideon
for awhile, have you not?

Oh, yeah.

Would you describe
yourself as a good friend?

Very good friend.

And you've been
personally present to see

that he and his wife argue over
his alcohol use. Is that correct?

Putting it mildly, yeah.
That's-that's happened frequently.

So, in reference to
the statement you made

attributable to Mr. Gideon
when you dropped him off,

how did you interpret
that statement?

Yeah, I reckoned it was on account of
the trouble he's having with his wife.

Hey, Pres, things are still a little
rocky with me and the old lady,

so don't tell anyone you
seen me tonight, all right?

Yeah, I got you.

Why would tonight be any different
than any other night, right?

I have no further questions.

Mr. Mentzer?

When Mr. Gideon told you right
before he left that cab that morning,

"You haven't seen me,"

you believed it might've had
something to do with his wife, right?

Right, yeah.

You don't
know for certain.

No, but...

You don't
know if he meant to say

you haven't seen me because I just
robbed the Bay Harbor Pool Room.

-Objection. Speculation.
-Sustained.

Anything else? Witness is
excused. Thank you very much, sir.

Anything else, Mr. Bakman?

I call Clarence
Gideon to the stand.

Take the stand, sir.

You may inquire.

Thank you,
Your Honor. Mr. Gideon,

back on June third, sir, did
you break into the pool hall?

No, I didn't.

Did you steal money from either of
the machines inside the pool hall?

No.

And when you got
into Preston Bray's cab,

did you have any
bottles of wine?

No. I don't drink wine.

Did you have
any cigarettes with you?

No, sir.

Tell me, on the morning of June third,
you were arrested. Is that right?

That's correct.

And when you talked to Detective
Pitts, and he asked you questions,

you denied stealing any
money from the pool hall.

-Of course, I did.
-Because you didn't do it, did you?

That's correct.

And to end your testimony
before this jury, Mr. Gideon,

tell the jury, sir, how much
money did you have on you

when police arrested
you that morning?

I had approximately $26.

Where'd you get the $26?

I won it gambling.

That's how you make your money?

Yeah, when I can.

Certainly not by stealing and
breaking in to pool halls, is it?

No, sir. Never.

No further questions.

You may inquire, Mr. Mentzer.

Thanks, Your Honor. Mr. Gideon,

you heard Henry Cook
say that he saw you

in the vicinity of the
Bay Harbor Pool Room

at about 5:30 A.M. on the morning of
June third. Correct? You heard that?

Yes.

-And that was true, correct?
-Yes, that's true.

You heard Henry
Cook testify to this jury

that he saw you that morning step into
a taxi cab and leave the area. Correct?

Yes, I heard that.

And when Mr. Cook said that, he was
also telling the truth, wasn't he?

That was true.

He even got the
cab driver right, didn't he?

Yeah, he did.

In fact, when Henry Cook said
that your pockets were bulging,

your pockets were in fact
bulging with coins, weren't they?

What do you mean, b-bulging?

Well, you had $26 worth of coins
in your two pockets, correct?

Yeah, that's correct, yeah.

But you didn't take those coins from
Irish Strickland's pool room, did you?

No, sir, I most
certainly did not.

Were you walking down the street
with a pocket full of coins

for any particular reason
that morning, Mr. Gideon?

Yeah. I don't leave money at my
apartment because I don't trust no one.

Now, did you have a steady job
at the time you were arrested?

No, I did not.

And it's your testimony
that you make the money

that you need to pay the rent
by your gambling job. Right?

Most of the time that works.

But as a gambler, sometimes you
win, sometimes you lose. Right?

Of course.

Thank
you, Mr. Gideon.

-Anything else?
-No further questions.

Witness is excused.

Anything else, Mr. Bakman?

No, Your Honor.
The defense rests.

Thank you. People, no
rebuttal witnesses?

-No rebuttal, Your Honor.
-Okay. I'll hear closing arguments.

Mr. Mentzer, you
wish to be heard?

Thank you, Your Honor.
Here's the news flash here.

Clarence Gideon is still guilty of
burglarizing the Bay Harbor Pool Room

on the morning of June third.

Now, I will give it to Mr. Bakman,
he made some clever arguments.

Some pretty ridiculous arguments. Like
Henry Cook is the real perpetrator.

And if it was Henry Cook,
well, where are the proceeds?

Henry Cook's pockets are
not filled with coins

that were removed from the cigarette
machine and from the jukebox.

Henry Cook didn't have any
wine, beer, soda on him either.

Henry Cook is not guilty. In
this case, ladies and gentlemen,

the evidence is
all there for you.

You have direct evidence from
the testimony of Mr. Cook.

You have circumstantial evidence

from a man whose pockets are
jam-packed full of coins.

The only thing
left for you to do

is to tell this man what he
already knows. He's guilty.

Thank you, Mr. Mentzer.
Mr. Bakman?

All right, ladies and gentlemen,
this is my closing argument.

Mr. Gideon is charged in this
case with breaking and entering,

essentially burglarizing
the pool hall.

And you have stolen
sodas, stolen smokes.

You have wine that was taken
and coins that were taken.

Interestingly enough, what did
the detective find on my client?

No smokes, no soda, no wine.

There was absolutely nothing, nothing,
to put Gideon outside the pool hall.

What you have, or rather, I should
say, what the prosecution has, is Cook.

Cook can't be believed.

He stands before you, he
testifies from this witness stand,

I saw this guy.

Positive on the
identification, folks.

And yet, minutes later, what
does he tell the grocer?

"I'm not sure at all."

How do you reconcile those
two inconsistent statements?

The best they've
got in this case

is the fact that my client
had coins in his pocket.

Are you so willing to
convict my client of a felony

by discounting his claim,

that he won money from gambling,
and accept the word of Henry Cook?

I certainly hope not.

The prosecution has failed to prove
this case beyond a reasonable doubt.

And because of that, my client is
entitled to a verdict of not guilty.

And that's what I hope
you return. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bakman.
Members of the jury,

you have now heard all of
the evidence in this case.

And this court charges you to
now deliberate and to determine

whether the People of the state of Florida
have proven beyond a reasonable doubt

that Clarence Gideon committed
the crime of burglary.

Thank you. You may retire.

Court, come to order.

The Honorable Judge Judy
Sheindlin presiding.

Thank you. The jury
has reached a verdict?

Kevin, can you hand me
that verdict sheet, please?

Mr. Gideon, would
you please rise?

The jury has deliberated.

And at this time, has returned
its verdict and finds you...

not guilty of the
crime of burglary.

This case is dismissed.
You are free to leave, sir.

We now take having an attorney
represent us as a basic American right.

But as we've shown, only
60 years ago, it wasn't.

It makes me wonder how
many people went to jail

before Clarence Gideon,
just because they were poor?

The American justice system is always
evolving, not written in stone,

but with an elasticity that
strives to make it better.