## Facts

- Melvin Porter, age 16, was arrested for selling marijuana to an undercover officer and, while in juvenile custody, told Officer Wade that John Anthony Green supplied the marijuana.
- At Green’s preliminary hearing, Porter again identified Green as the source but changed details about how the marijuana was provided; Green’s counsel extensively cross-examined Porter.
- At Green’s later bench trial, Porter testified but was evasive, claimed poor memory, and failed to provide consistent details.
- Relying on California Evidence Code § 1235, the prosecution introduced Porter’s prior inconsistent statement to Officer Wade and Porter’s preliminary-hearing testimony as substantive evidence of Green’s guilt.
- Green was convicted; the California appellate courts reversed on the ground that substantive use of such prior statements violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.

## Issues

1. Whether the Confrontation Clause bars admitting a witness’s prior out-of-court statements for their truth when the witness testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination.
2. Whether admitting preliminary-hearing testimony (given under oath with counsel and an opportunity for cross-examination) violates the Confrontation Clause when used at trial.
3. Whether a witness’s claimed memory loss at trial can so limit cross-examination that admitting the witness’s prior statements violates the Confrontation Clause.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the state court judgment and remanded.
- The Court held that admitting a declarant’s prior statements does not violate the Confrontation Clause when the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to full and effective cross-examination.
- The Court held that the preliminary-hearing testimony in this case could be admitted consistently with the Confrontation Clause because it was under oath, with counsel present, and with a full opportunity for cross-examination.
- The Court left for the state courts, on remand, the question whether Porter’s claimed memory loss at trial so impaired cross-examination as to change the constitutional analysis as to the statement to the police officer.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause is generally satisfied when the declarant appears at trial, testifies under oath, and is subject to cross-examination, even if prior inconsistent statements are introduced for their truth.
- Confrontation analysis is not identical to hearsay doctrine; the Clause does not require that every prior inculpatory statement have been made under cross-examination at the time it was made.
- Prior testimony from a preliminary hearing may be admitted at trial, consistent with the Confrontation Clause, when the defendant had counsel and an adequate opportunity to cross-examine and the setting serves confrontation purposes comparable to trial.
- A witness’s asserted memory loss may raise a separate question about whether cross-examination is sufficiently effective, requiring case-specific assessment.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment does not bar substantive use of a witness’s prior statements when the witness testifies at trial and can be cross-examined, and it approved admission of this witness’s preliminary-hearing testimony because the defendant previously had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine; it remanded for further consideration of whether claimed memory loss at trial made cross-examination constitutionally insufficient as to the police statement.


California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970)