In the United States v. Pointer case of 1890, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against them applies not only in federal court but also extends to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment. The case involved an individual named Pointer who was convicted of robbery in Texas based on testimony from an absent witness whose deposition had been taken without Pointer being present or represented by counsel. On appeal, he argued this violated his constitutional rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment which guarantees defendants "the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The Supreme Court agreed and reversed his conviction, establishing for future cases that these protections apply at all levels of American jurisprudence.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Pointer case argued that the majority's decision to overturn Pointer's conviction was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of the Constitution and legal precedent. The dissenters believed that, while a defendant has a right under the Sixth Amendment to confront witnesses against them, this right is not absolute and can be limited in certain circumstances for compelling reasons. They pointed out that previous court decisions had allowed exceptions when there were strong public or private interests at stake, such as protecting child victims from trauma or ensuring national security information remains confidential. In this case, they felt that allowing testimony via video link did not violate Pointer's rights because he still had an opportunity to cross-examine his accuser through his attorney during trial proceedings. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “face-to-face” confrontation requirement stating it should not be taken literally but rather contextually considering modern technological advancements.