## Facts

- A 7‑11 store in Harris County, Texas, was robbed, and the store manager identified Bob Granville Pointer as the robber.
- Pointer was brought to a preliminary hearing before a justice of the peace without counsel.
- The complainant testified at the preliminary hearing; Pointer did not cross-examine him.
- Pointer was later indicted and tried for robbery in Texas state court.
- By trial, the complainant had moved out of state and did not appear; the prosecution introduced the transcript of his preliminary-hearing testimony over objection.
- Pointer was convicted, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses, including effective cross-examination, applies to state criminal trials through the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether admitting a preliminary-hearing transcript at trial violates the Confrontation Clause when the defendant lacked counsel and did not meaningfully cross-examine the witness at the earlier hearing.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, including the right of cross-examination, is a fundamental right enforceable against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Court held that admitting the preliminary-hearing transcript under these circumstances denied Pointer the right of confrontation.
- The Court declined to decide whether the Constitution requires appointment of counsel at every state preliminary hearing, focusing instead on the use at trial of the prior testimony.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment right “to be confronted with the witnesses against” the accused includes the right to cross-examine those witnesses.
- The Confrontation Clause is a fundamental component of a fair criminal trial and applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Prior testimony may not be used at trial against a defendant who did not have an adequate opportunity for cross-examination when the testimony was given; physical presence alone does not satisfy confrontation.
- A defendant’s failure to cross-examine at an uncounseled preliminary hearing is not treated as a knowing waiver when the record does not show an informed, deliberate choice.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Confrontation Clause binds state courts and that Texas violated that right by reading preliminary-hearing testimony at trial where the accused, without counsel, had no meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the absent witness.


Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965)