California v. Green
- Decided
- June 23, 1970
- Docket
- 387
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,363 timesOverruled on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled on other grounds, disapproved (not yet verified) · State of Tennessee v. Innocent S. Nzamubereka
What later courts said
- holding that “the Confrontation Clause does not require excluding from evidence the prior statements of a witness who concedes making those statements” — United States v. Bucci (2008)
- holding that the California evidence rule on which Rule 801(d)(1)(A) was based did not violate the confrontation clause — United States v. Darren C. Thomas (1993)
- holding that hearsay statements are only admissible where the declarant is "subject to full and effective cross-examination." — State v. Nyhammer (2007)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 1235 of the California Evidence Code, effective as of January 1, 1967, provides that “[e]vidence of a statement made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing and is offered in compliance with Section 770.” 1 In People v. Johnson, 68 Cal. 2d 646, 441 P. 2d 111 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U. S. 1051 (1969), the California Supreme Court held that prior statements of a witness that were not subject to cross-examination when originally made, could not be introduced under this section to prove the charges against a defendant without violating the defendant’s right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and made applicable to [*151] the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. In the case now before us the California Supreme Court applied the same ban to a prior statement of a witness made at a preliminary hearing, under oath and subject to full cross-examination by an adequately counseled defendant. We cannot agree with the California court for two reasons, one of which involves rejection of the holding in People v. Johnson.
I
Cite this
California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.