Pointer v. Texas (1964)
- Docket
- 577
- Decided
- 1964-01-01
Summary
Question: Did Texas violate Pointer's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by admitting evidence drawn from a preliminary hearing where Pointer was not represented by counsel? Conclusion: Yes. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Hugo Black, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right of confrontation required Texas to allow Pointer an opportunity to confront Dillard through counsel. Justice Black declined to answer whether the Sixth Amendment required Texas to appoint counsel to represent Pointer at a preliminary hearing. Justice Black described the history of the Sixth Amendment in the Court, writing that the Fourteenth Amendment imposed the right to counsel on the states. He emphasized the importance of a defendant's right to confront witnesses against him and described it as a fundamental right. Justice John Marshall Harlan II concurred in the result, rejecting the majority's assumption that Sixth Amendment rights were incorporated and applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, he argued that a right of confrontation was implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Justice Potter Stewart concurred in the result, also disagreeing that the states were limited by the Sixth Amendment. He characterized the right to cross-examine as one of the safeguards essential to a fair trial. Justice Arthur Goldberg concurred. He emphasized that the Court largely agreed that certain basic rights were fundamental and not to be denied by either state or federal governments under the Constitution.