What was one piece of testimony that influenced the jury's decision in the gideon v. wainwright?

Answer 1

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963)

Prosecutor's Evidence
Police report that Gideon was carrying $25.28 in coins when arrested
Testimony of Henry Cook
Testimony of Ira Strickland, pool hall owner

Gideon's Witnesses
Testimony of Gideon, who speculated Cook and his friends may have broken into the pool hall.
Testimony of Deputy Pitts (nature of testimony unknown)
Testimony of the cab driver who drove Gideon to the bar
Testimony of a character witness, a female patron of the pool hall


Sometime between midnight and 6:00 am on June 3, 1961, someone smashed a window in Ira Strickland's Bay Harbor Pool Hall, pried open the cigarette machine and jukebox, and stole approximately $65 in change. Strickland claimed there were also 12 beers, 12 cokes, and 4 fifths of cheap wine missing from his business.

Henry Cook, a neighborhood resident who claimed to be returning home from a night of partying 50 miles up the coast, told police he had seen Clarence Earl Gideon inside the pool room around 5:30 am. Cook testified he watched Gideon leave the building with a bottle of wine in his hand, his pockets bulging with change.

Cook also said he saw Gideon use the payphone, then depart in a taxi several minutes later. Police tracked Gideon to a bar in Panama City. On arrest, they determined he had $25.28 in coins in his pockets, which they assumed was taken from the Bay Harbor Pool Hall. Gideon said the change was his winnings from nickel-ante Poker, and that he had not broken into the pool hall.

Note that the Cokes, beer and at least three bottles of wine are unaccounted for in Cook's testimony. This discrepancy was not mentioned in the first trial.

The lack of evidence should have raised reasonable doubt, but Gideon was out-lawyered by Assistant State Attorney William Harris, and the six jurors found him guilty.


For more information on Gideon v. Wainwright, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 2

There was no jury empaneled in Gideon v. Wainwright. This was a case heard by judges and justices, an appeal of a sentence rendered where the felony defendant was not provided counsel.

Gideon made the pro se filings that won hearings in lower courts. Abe Fortas was appointed in his behalf before the Supreme Court. Fortas later served briefly on the court himself.

The Gideon decision turned into a class action. Florida was forced to retry all state prison defendants who were without counsel during their criminal proceedings, or had to turn them loose. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, were released, as it would have been near impossible to reassemble prosecution witnesses, thanks often to a prolonged period of time since their cases were originally heard.