Pointer v. Texas - Significance, Supreme Court Holds That States Must Allow Criminal Defendants To Confront And Cross-examine Witnesses Against Them
Bob Granville Pointer
State of Texas
That the use of transcribed testimony in a criminal prosecution deprived the defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Orville A. Harlan
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Gilbert J. Pena
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black (writing for the Court), William J. Brennan, Jr., Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, Arthur Goldberg, John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart, Earl Warren, Byron R. White
Date of Decision
5 April 1965
Reversed Pointer's conviction.
- Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
- Malloy v. Hogan, 678 U.S. 1 (1964).
- Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley - Public Forum Doctrine, Legal Proceedings, Time, Place, And Manner And Equal Protection, Impact
- Orzoco v. Texas - Significance, A Significant Reversal, Impact
- Pointer v. Texas - Significance
- Pointer v. Texas - Further Readings
- Pointer v. Texas - Supreme Court Holds That States Must Allow Criminal Defendants To Confront And Cross-examine Witnesses Against Them
- Other Free Encyclopedias