California v. Green

Supreme Court of the United States · 1970 · Evidence

399 U.S. 149 (1970)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseHearsayPrior inconsistent statementsSixth Amendmentconfrontationprior inconsistent statementsubstantive evidence

Facts

After his arrest for selling marihuana, 16-year-old Melvin Porter identified Green as his supplier in a statement to Officer Wade and later at Green's preliminary hearing. At the preliminary hearing, Porter testified under oath and was extensively cross-examined by Green's counsel. At trial two months later, Porter became evasive, claimed uncertainty and memory loss because he had been on LSD at the relevant time, and did not firmly repeat the prior account. The trial court admitted both Porter's preliminary-hearing testimony and his earlier statement to Officer Wade under California Evidence Code section 1235 as substantive evidence, and Green was convicted.

Issue

Does the Confrontation Clause bar a State from admitting as substantive evidence a witness's prior inconsistent statements when the witness appears at trial and is subject to cross-examination? Separately, does it bar substantive use of the witness's prior preliminary-hearing testimony given under oath and subject to cross-examination?

Rule

The Confrontation Clause is not violated by admitting a declarant's out-of-court statements when the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to full and effective cross-examination. Also, prior testimony given at a preliminary hearing under oath, with counsel present and an adequate opportunity for cross-examination before a judicial tribunal, is constitutionally admissible, and no different constitutional result follows merely because the witness is later produced at trial.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a robbery trial in Chicago, Nolan Price testifies for the prosecution but says the defendant was not the robber. The prosecution then offers Nolan's earlier signed statement to a neighborhood security guard identifying the defendant; Nolan admits he made the statement and answers defense questions about why he changed his story.

Assuming state evidence law allows substantive use of the earlier statement, does the Confrontation Clause bar its admission for its truth?

Explanation. The majority held that the Confrontation Clause does not require exclusion of a witness's prior inconsistent statement when the declarant appears at trial and is subject to full and effective cross-examination concerning both versions. The Clause is not simply identical to hearsay doctrine, and the absence of oath or contemporaneous cross-examination when the prior statement was made does not itself create a constitutional bar if the declarant is present and can explain, deny, or defend the inconsistency before the trier of fact.