Pointer v. Texas

Although in 1965 most states recognized the right of confrontation guaranteed in federal trials by the Sixth Amendment, Texas did not. Pointer emphasized that the standard for upholding this right must be uniform throughout the states.

Bob Granville Pointer and an accomplice were arrested in Texas and charged with robbing Kenneth W. Phillips of $375. Pointer and his accomplice were then taken before a state judge for a preliminary hearing. At the hearing, an assistant district attorney examined witnesses, but neither of the accused men was represented by a lawyer. As the chief witness against them, Phillips gave his version of events, identifying Pointer as the one who had robbed him at gunpoint. Although Pointer's accomplice tried to cross-examined Phillips, Pointer did not. Pointer was subsequently indicted on robbery charges

Before the trial began, Phillips moved to California. After submitting evidence that Phillips did not intend to return to Texas, the prosecution offered the transcript of his testimony at the preliminary hearing as evidence against Pointer. Pointer was by this time represented by counsel, but although his lawyer objected to the admission of the transcript, the trial judge overruled him. Pointer was convicted of armed robbery. After his appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals failed, he took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to counsel in criminal cases applicable in state trials. The issue in Pointer was whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment also made the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment applicable to the states. The Confrontation Clause guarantees that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Although the right to confront one's accusers in a criminal prosecution had long been recognized by the laws of most states, the circumstances in Pointer made it clear that there was a lack of uniformity in the state standards for satisfying this right.