Document: 380 U.S. 400 85 S.Ct. 1065 13 L.Ed.2d 923 Bob Granville POINTER, Petitioner,v.STATE OF TEXAS. No. 577. Argued March 15, 1965. Decided April 5, Orville A. Harlan, Houston, Tex., for petitioner. Gilbert J. Pena, Laredo, respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. The Sixth Amendment provides in part that: 1 'In all criminal prosecutions, accused shall enjoy right * to be confronted with witnesses against him and have Assistance Counsel his defence.' 2 Two years ago Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 9 799, we held that Fourteenth makes Amendment's guarantee counsel obligatory upon States. question find necessary decide this case is whether a defendant's 'to him,' which has been include cross-examine those witnesses, also made applicable States by Amendment. 3 petitioner Pointer one Dillard were arrested Texas taken before state judge preliminary hearing (in called 'examining trial') on charge having robbed Kenneth W. Phillips $375 'by assault, or violence, putting fear life bodily injury,' violation Penal Code Art. 1408. At an Assistant District Attorney conducted prosecution examined but neither defendants, both whom laymen, had lawyer. as chief witness State gave version alleged robbery detail, identifying man who at gunpoint. Apparently tried did not, although was said some other hearing. Petitioner subsequently indicted committed robbery. Some time trial held, moved California. After evidence show not intent return Texas, offered transcript Phillips' testimony given Petitioner's immediately objected introduction transcript, stating, 'Your Honor, will object that, it denial confrontment Defendant.' Similar objections repeatedly petitioner's overruled judge, apparently because, viewed it, present therefore 'accorded opportunity cross examining there him.' Court Criminal Appeals, highest court could taken, affirmed conviction, rejecting contention use convict denied rights guaranteed Amendments. 375 S.W.2d 293. We granted certiorari consider important constitutional involves. 379 815, 88, 28. 4 In do aspect raises, is, failure appoint represent unconstitutionally assistance within meaning supra. making argument relies mainly White Maryland, 373 59, 1050, 10 193, reversed conviction based defendant pleaded guilty crime where he without counsel. Since there, Hamilton Alabama, 368 52, 82 157, 7 114, pleas made, proceeding nature so critical stage point entitled But informs us such involved here, are accepted decides only should bound over grand jury if admitted bail. Because these significant differences procedures respective States, cannot say necessarily controlling Whether might circumstances call appointment need record reserve. arguments well Appeals make clear objection much fact no lawyer when statement hearing, any benefit counsel's cross-examination principal him. It latter here. I. 5 what our Bill Rights. supra, ground 'a provision Rights 'fundamental essential fair trial' Amendment.' U.S., 342, S.Ct., 795. And last Term Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 84 1489, 12 653, holding Fifth self-incrimination Fourteenth, reiterated right-to-counsel "a fundamental right, trial," 'thus 6, 1492. See Murphy Waterfront Comm'n, 1594, 678. hold today confront likewise 6 seriously doubted late date included probably one, certainly experienced lawsuits, would deny value exposing falsehood bringing out truth case. See, e.g., Wigmore, Evidence § 1367 (3d ed. 1940). appears reflects belief Framers liberties safeguards confrontation prosecution. Moreover, decisions courts* throughout constantly emphasized necessity protection defendants cases. This Kirby United 174 47, 55, 56, 19 574, 577, 43 L.Ed. 890, referred '(o)ne guaranties liberty,' long deemed due liberty guarded legislative judicial action provisions constitution constitutions most, all, states composing Union.' Stone, writing Alford 282 687, 692, 51 218, 219, 75 624, declared 'one trial.' speaking Greene McElroy, 360 474, 79 1400, 1377: 'They ancient roots. They expression cases zealous protect from erosion.' 496—497, 1413 (footnote omitted. 8 There few subjects, perhaps, courts more nearly unanimous than their expressions requirement kind country's goal. Indeed, expressly deprive process law. re Oliver, 333 257, 68 499, 92 682, said: 'A person's reasonable notice him, heard defense—a day court—are basic system jurisprudence; include, minimum, examine offer testimony, represented counsel.' 273, 507 omitted). earlier Turner Louisiana, 466, 472—473, 546, 550, 424, held: 11 sense, implies very least 'evidence developed' come stand public courtroom full confrontation, cross-examination, Compare Willner Committee Character & Fitness, 96, 103—104, 1175, 1180—1181, 224. aware cases, particularly West 194 258, 264, 24 650, 652, 48 965, stated does apply trials courts, entire apply. Stein People New York, 346 156, 195—196, 73 1077, 1098 1099, 97 1522. course since longer can broadly courts. 'The hesitated re-examine past according less central role preservation contemplated its they added scheme.' light Gideon, Malloy, cited opinions various virtue Amendment, statements similar generally declaring regarded accordance guarantee, like compelled self-incrimination, enforced under same standards personal federal encroachment.' 10, 1495. II. 14 Under Court's prior decisions, unquestionably As pointed out, major reason underlying rule give charged Dowdell 221 325, 330, 31 590, 592, 55 753; Motes 178 458, 20 993, 999, 44 1150; 55—56, 890; Mattox 156 237, 242—243, 15 337, 339 340, 39 409. Cf. Hopt Territory Utah, 110 581, 202, 205, 28 262; Queen Hepburn, Cranch 290, 295, 348. recognized admissibility dying declarations, 146 140, 151, 50, 53, 36 917, deceased testified former trial, 240—244, 338—340, 592; 61, 579. Nothing here contrary. quite different full-fledged complete adequate cross-examine. 999. analogous situations fall scope requiring witnesses. us, however, situation mentioned above others them. affording through Phillips, amounted privilege must determined proceeding, follows reversed. Reversed remanded. 16 HARLAN, concurring result. 17 I agree admission deprived 'confrontation' assured subscribe, reasoning 18 holds carried into another step onward march long-since discredited 'incorporation' doctrine (see, Fairman, Does Incorporate Rights? Original Understanding, Stan.L.Rev. (1949); Frankfurter, Memorandum 'Incorporation' Into Due Process Clause 78 Harv.L.Rev. 746 (1965)), yet able fathom sunlight recent years. Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 1081; Ker California, 374 23, 1623, 726; 653. For me judgment because 'implicit concept ordered Palko Connecticut, 302 319, 58 149, 152, 288, reflected independently Sixth. While either approaches brings end result particular case, difference between two future development portend. embodied host thoughtful now rapidly falling discard, recognizes Constitution tolerates, indeed encourages, methods used effectuate legitimate concerns, subject requirements fairness liberty.' philosophy 'incorporation,' hand, subordinates Federal (but see 34, 1630) increasingly subjects legal processes enveloping authority. 'Selective' incorporation 'absorption' amounts little diluted form theory. Whereas rejects recognition guarantees 'fundamental,' ignores possibility phases guaranty described fundamental. 21 too often forgotten times American itself constitutionally ordained, embodies values profoundly lasting country, demand continuing solid work doctrines, blown selective, historically unsound incompatible maintenance even course. 22 STEWART, 23 join reversing cross-examine, counsel, pronouncement 'the States.' That questionable tour de force seems entirely unnecessary decision think directly controlled 'deprive person life, liberty, property, law.' defense prosecutor's living liberty,'1 trial.'2 think, indispensable ingredient 'right presided judge.'3 Term. 472 473, 549—550, 424.4 25 Here completely denied. Therefore, correctly points presented 965. 26 GOLDBERG, concurring. 27 Ante, 403. My Brother while agreeing reached Court, deplores 'another doctrine,' ante, 408. issue joined, Adamson 332 46, 67 1672, 91 1903, deem appropriate set forth briefly my view subject. recapitulate 'total' 'selective.' adequately elsewhere.1 BLACK's never commanded majority though assented four Justices. followed whereby certain 'have articles bill brought Amendment,' 326, aptly absorption.' Ibid. Cohen Hurley, 366 117, 154, 954, 974, (dissenting Brennan); Brennan, N.Y.U.L.Rev. 761 (1961). Thus infringement First Amendment,2 Fourth Amendment,3 Just Compensation Amendment,4 self-incrimination,5 Eighth prohibition cruel unusual punishments,6 prosecution.7 29 With deference 'come years.' Rather, believe origins far back Twining Jersey, 211 78, 99, 14, 19, 53 97, 'it possible safeguarded first eight Amendments national may action, them Chicago, Burlington Quincy Railroad (City of) 166 226, 41 979.' passage authority protected 'rights,' every solely 'fair' afford protection. Later reaffirm extending 'rights.' Brennan dissenting 975. apparent votes 799; 678, York Times Co. Sullivan, 376 254, 297, 710, 735, 686, subscribe absorbed thereby applied 30 Furthermore, HARLAN once strength. Such 'only 'watered-down, subjective individual Rights." 10—11, allow greater latitude Government abridge concededly Constitution. Brandeis '(i)t happy incidents serve laboratory; try novel social economic experiments,' Ice Liebmann, 285 262, 280, 311, 52 371, 386, 76 747 opinion), includes power experiment citizens HARLAN's require extremely excessively discretionary determination practice, forbidden factual surrounding each sufficiently repugnant notion Finally, further interests federalism. intervene considerable lack predictability consequent likelihood friction. illustrated difficulties faced articulated attempting discarded Betts Brady, 316 455, 62 1252, 86 1595. Green, Rights, Supreme 46 Mich.L.Rev. 869, 897—898. These led Attorneys General urge overrule Brady fully 336, 792. impair increase power, but, rather, limit governments favor safeguarding individual. promotes rather undermines policy avoiding excess concentration government, state, underlies concepts 32 adhere support absorption means Although, illustrates, among members theory protects citizens, noteworthy large area agreement, fundamental—not Cantwell 310 296, 60 900, 1213; NAACP Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 449, 1163, 1488; supra; 424. English collected §§ 1367, 1395 statutory Wigmore 1397, n. 1. 890. 624. Rideau 723, 727, 1417, 1419, 663. Murchison, 349 133, 623, 99 942, 'due requires minimum after charges, own behalf, 134, 1679 (concurring Frankfurter); id., 68, 1684 Black); 1497 Harlan); 345, 797, 799 Douglas); 349, Poe Ullman, 497, 509, 1752, 1759, 989 Cause 746; Black, 35 865 (1960); (1961); 869 (1948); Henkin, 'Selective Incorporation' Yale L.J. 74 (1963). Gitlow 268 666, 45 625, 629, 69 1138; De Jonge Oregon, 299 353, 364, 57 255, 259, 278; 303, 903, Louisiana Gremillion NAACP, 293, 1333, 1335, 301; 686. Wolf Colorado, 338 25, 1359, 93 1782; 1081. B. Q.R. City 979. Robinson 370 660, 758. 799.

Category: 0