Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Evidence

Pointer v. Texas

Supreme Court of the United States · 1965 · Evidence
380 U.S. 400 (1965)
Updated
EvidenceConfrontation ClauseIncorporationSixth AmendmentFourteenth Amendmentcross-examinationprior testimonypreliminary hearing

Facts

Pointer was arrested in Texas and taken before a state judge for a preliminary hearing on a robbery charge. At that hearing, the State's chief witness, Phillips, testified in detail and identified Pointer, but Pointer had no lawyer and did not cross-examine Phillips. Before trial, Phillips moved to California, and the State, after showing he did not intend to return to Texas, offered the transcript of his preliminary-hearing testimony at trial. Pointer's counsel repeatedly objected that admission of the transcript denied confrontation, but the objections were overruled and Pointer was convicted.

Issue

Whether the Sixth Amendment right of an accused to be confronted with the witnesses against him applies to state criminal trials through the Fourteenth Amendment, and whether Texas violated that right by admitting the transcript of a witness's preliminary-hearing testimony when Pointer had no adequate opportunity through counsel to cross-examine the witness.

Rule

The Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, including the right of cross-examination, is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and is therefore obligatory on the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. A state may not use prior testimony against a criminal defendant when that testimony was not taken at a time and under circumstances affording the defendant, through counsel, an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a burglary prosecution in Ohio state court, the judge allows the prosecution to prove a key disputed fact by reading a sworn transcript from an earlier criminal proceeding involving the same defendant. Defense counsel objects that the state constitution permits the practice, but the defendant argues that the federal confrontation guarantee applies in state criminal trials as well.

How should the objection be resolved under the governing constitutional rule?

Explanation. The majority held that the Sixth Amendment right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and is therefore obligatory on the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. A state court must apply the same confrontation standards that would govern in federal court.