California v. Green

Background

California charged John Green with furnishing marijuana to a minor. The key witness, a 16‑year‑old named Porter, first told police and then testified at a preliminary hearing that Green was his supplier. At trial Porter claimed he could not remember the events (saying he had taken LSD), and the prosecution read his earlier sworn preliminary‑hearing testimony and an unsworn statement to an officer into evidence under California Evidence Code §1235. Green was convicted, the California courts struck down §1235 as violating the Sixth Amendment, and the State appealed to this Court.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the Confrontation Clause forbids using a witness’s prior inconsistent statements when the witness appears at trial and can be cross‑examined. The majority said it does not. The Court emphasized that the core protections—oath, cross‑examination, and observation of the witness—are substantially preserved when a declarant who made sworn, cross‑examined testimony at a hearing is produced at trial and can be questioned about both accounts. The Court relied on earlier decisions about absent witnesses and held that admitting prior sworn testimony under those circumstances does not violate the Sixth Amendment.

Real world impact

The decision lets states adopt rules like California’s permitting prior sworn inconsistent testimony to be used substantively when the witness is produced and cross‑examined. The case is sent back to the California courts to sort out other issues (for example, whether the officer’s unsworn statement was admissible and whether any error was harmless). This ruling also encourages states to experiment with evidence rules in criminal trials.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Burger and Harlan agreed but emphasized state experimentation and an availability focus; Justice Brennan dissented, arguing admission here unconstitutionally deprived the defendant of meaningful confrontation when the witness could not or would not testify about the key events.