Original subtitles

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.