Pennsylvania v. Ritchie
- Decided
- February 24, 1987
- Docket
- 85-1347
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,521 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the right to confrontation is a trial right and is normally satisfied “if defense counsel receives wide latitude at trial to question witnesses” — State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde (2014)
- recognizing that “[c]hild abuse is one of the most difficult crimes to detect and prosecute, in large part because there often are no witnesses except the victim” — State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Frank G. (2005)
- holding that the Confrontation Clause is satisfied so long as the defense is given “wide latitude” to confront witnesses, and that inquiry into counsel’s effectiveness in cross-examination is not required — Farmer v. State (2005)
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
Justice Powell announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III-B, III-C, and IV, and an opinion with respect to Part III-A, in which The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice O’Connor join.
The question presented in this case is whether and to what extent a State’s interest in the confidentiality of its investiga [*43] tive files concerning child abuse must yield to a criminal defendant’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to discover favorable evidence.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987)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.