Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Pointer Vs. Texas

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 05, 1965

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

66 entries 6 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. Malloy Vs. Hogan US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  2. Ker Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1963
    Distinguished
  3. Palko Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1937
    Distinguished
  4. Rideau Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1963
  5. Greene Vs. Mcelroy US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1959
  6. Cohen Vs. Hurley US Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1961
  7. U.S. 400 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court Pointer v. Texas
    Search
  8. U.S. 400 (1965) Pointer v. Texas
    Search
  9. Two years ago, in Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  10. him at the preliminary hearing unconstitutionally denied him the assistance of counsel within the meaning of Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  11. supra. In making that argument, petitioner relies mainly on White v. Maryland
    Search
  12. the crime at a preliminary hearing, where he was without counsel. Since the preliminary hearing there, as in Hamilton v. Alabama
    Search
  13. which we decide here. I The Sixth Amendment is a part of what is called our Bill of Rights. In Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  14. U.S. at 372 U. S. 342 . And last Term, in Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  15. U.S. at 378 U. S. 6 . See also Murphy v. Waterfront
    Search
  16. emphasized the necessity for cross-examination as a protection for defendants in criminal cases. This Court, in Kirby v. United
    Search
  17. Mr. Justice Stone, writing for the Court in Alford v. United
    Search
  18. And, in speaking of confrontation and cross-examination, this Court said in Greene v. McElroy
    Search
  19. U.S. at 333 U. S. 273 (footnote omitted). And earlier this Term, in Turner v. Louisiana
    Search
  20. Compare Willner v. Committee
    Search
  21. S. 96 , 373 U. S. 103 -104. Page 380 U. S. 406 We are aware that some cases, particularly West v. Louisiana
    Search
  22. not apply to trials in state courts, on the ground that the entire Sixth Amendment does not so apply. See also Stein v. New
    Search
  23. York, 346 U. S. 156 , 346 U. S. 195 -196. But, of course, since Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  24. longer can broadly be said that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to state courts. And, as this Court said in Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  25. to give a defendant charged with crime an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him. See, e.g., Dowdell v. United
    Search
  26. Motes v. United
    Search
  27. Kirby v. United
    Search
  28. Mattox v. United
    Search
  29. States, 156 U. S. 237 , 156 U. S. 242 -243. Cf. Hopt v. Utah
    Search
  30. Queen v. Hepburn
    Search
  31. U. S. 295 . This Court has recognized the admissibility against an accused of dying declarations, Mattox v. United
    Search
  32. U. S. 151 , and of testimony of a deceased witness who has testified at a former trial, Mattox v. United
    Search
  33. States, 156 U. S. 237 , 156 U. S. 240 -244. See also Dowdell v. United
    Search
  34. had been represented by counsel who had been given a complete and adequate opportunity to cross-examine. Compare Motes v. United
    Search
  35. for some reason that I have not yet been able to fathom has come into the sunlight in recent years. See, e.g., Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  36. subordinates all such state differences to the particular requirements of the Federal Bill of Rights ( but see Ker v. California
    Search
  37. Indeed, this Court has said so this very Term. Turner v. Louisiana
    Search
  38. had been taken at a hearing at which the petitioner's counsel was given a full opportunity to cross-examine. See West v. Louisiana
    Search
  39. Alford v. United
    Search
  40. ante at 380 U. S. 408 . Since I was not on the Court when the incorporation issue was joined, see Adamson v. California
    Search
  41. Ibid. See Cohen v. Hurley
    Search
  42. Ante at 380 U. S. 408 . Rather, I believe that it has its origins at least as far back as Twining v. New
    Search
  43. state action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago
    Search
  44. See Ker v. California
    Search
  45. U. S. 1 , and cases cited by MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN in his dissenting opinion in Cohen v. Hurley
    Search
  46. U. S. 156 . I agree with these decisions, as is apparent from my votes in Page 380 U. S. 413 Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court Pointer v. Texas
    Search
  48. Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  49. of Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  50. White v. Maryland
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial