Pennsylvania v. Ritchie

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Evidence

480 U.S. 39 (1987)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseCompulsory ProcessDue ProcessConfidential recordsBrady materialchild abuse recordsin camera review

Facts

Pennsylvania's Children and Youth Services investigated suspected child abuse involving Ritchie's family and kept records that state law generally made confidential, subject to specified exceptions including disclosure by court order. Before trial, Ritchie subpoenaed the agency's files, arguing they might contain favorable witnesses, inconsistent statements, or other exculpatory material, but the agency refused and the trial court denied disclosure without reviewing the entire file. At trial, Ritchie's daughter testified against him, and defense counsel cross-examined her at length without any special restriction on scope. Ritchie was convicted and later argued that nondisclosure of the file violated his constitutional rights.

Issue

Whether the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause or Compulsory Process Clause required disclosure of confidential child-abuse investigative files to defense counsel, and if not, whether due process nonetheless required judicial review of the files for material exculpatory evidence. Also, whether the defendant was entitled to full access to the file or only to court-supervised review.

Rule

The Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination at trial, not a constitutionally compelled right to pretrial discovery. Claims for access to confidential state files of this kind are evaluated under due process: the defendant is entitled to in camera judicial review of the file for evidence favorable to the accused that is material, meaning there is a reasonable probability that disclosure would have changed the result. A defendant has no constitutional right to conduct an unsupervised search of the State's files for possible exculpatory material.

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.

In Phoenix, Daniel Mercer is tried for assaulting his teenage son. Before trial, Daniel subpoenas confidential files from Maricopa Family Support Services, arguing they may contain prior inconsistent statements by the son. The judge denies defense counsel access to the files, but at trial allows counsel to cross-examine the son broadly on his account, motive, memory, and prior reports.

Which is the strongest constitutional argument for Daniel?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, the Confrontation Clause is a trial right. It protects against improper restrictions on cross-examination at trial, not against the denial of general pretrial discovery. Because counsel was permitted broad cross-examination at trial, withholding the confidential file did not itself violate confrontation.