Pointer v. Texas
380 U.S. 400 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a defendant's right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental right made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Bob Pointer and one Dillard were arrested in Texas on a charge of robbing Kenneth W. Phillips.
- A preliminary hearing, known in Texas as an 'examining trial,' was held before a state judge.
- At the hearing, Phillips, the chief witness, provided detailed testimony identifying Pointer as the man who robbed him at gunpoint.
- Pointer was present at the hearing but was not represented by a lawyer.
- While a co-defendant attempted to cross-examine Phillips, Pointer himself did not.
- Before Pointer's trial commenced, Phillips moved to California and did not intend to return to Texas to testify.
Procedural Posture:
- Pointer was indicted for robbery in a Texas state trial court.
- At trial, the prosecution introduced the transcript of testimony from the robbery victim, Kenneth Phillips, given at a prior preliminary hearing.
- Pointer's counsel objected to the admission of the transcript on the grounds that it violated Pointer's right of confrontation.
- The trial judge overruled the objection and admitted the transcript into evidence.
- Pointer was subsequently convicted of robbery.
- Pointer appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest state court for criminal matters.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the use of the transcript did not violate Pointer's constitutional rights.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Pointer's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Sixth Amendment's right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him, including the right to cross-examination, apply to state court proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. The Sixth Amendment's right of an accused to confront witnesses against him is a fundamental right that is made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for a fair trial. Citing its reasoning in Gideon v. Wainwright, which incorporated the right to counsel, the Court held that any provision of the Bill of Rights that is 'fundamental and essential to a fair trial' must apply to the states. The use of a transcript of a preliminary hearing, where the defendant was not represented by counsel and thus had no adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness, violates this constitutional right. The Court explicitly stated that past cases suggesting the Sixth Amendment does not apply to the states are no longer good law.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes, the conviction should be reversed, but not because the Sixth Amendment is 'incorporated' into the Fourteenth. Justice Harlan argued that the right of confrontation is 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' and is therefore protected directly by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, independent of the Sixth Amendment. He criticized the majority's 'incorporation' doctrine as historically unsound and a threat to federalism, as it subordinates state legal processes to a uniform federal standard.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes, the conviction must be reversed, but the Court's incorporation reasoning is an unnecessary 'tour de force.' He asserted that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the chief witness, which is a direct violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process of law. This denial of a right so 'essential to a fair trial' is enough to decide the case without formally making the entire Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment obligatory on the states.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Goldberg
Yes. Justice Goldberg joined the majority's opinion and judgment, writing to endorse the process of 'absorption' or selective incorporation. He countered Justice Harlan's critique by arguing that this process ensures fundamental rights from the Bill of Rights apply to the states in their full strength, not in a 'watered-down' version. He asserted that applying these fundamental guarantees limits the power of both federal and state governments in favor of individual liberty, which strengthens, rather than undermines, federalism.
Analysis:
Pointer v. Texas is a landmark decision in the process of selective incorporation, whereby provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. This case solidified the principle that key procedural protections for criminal defendants are not just federal rights but are fundamental to the American concept of justice. By incorporating the Confrontation Clause, the Court significantly impacted state criminal procedure, requiring that defendants be given an adequate opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, thereby standardizing this right across the nation and preventing convictions based on ex parte testimony.
Unlock the full brief for Pointer v. Texas