Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Pennsylvania Vs. Ritchie

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 01, 1987

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

74 entries 16 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Radio Station Wow, Inc. Vs. Johnson US Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1945
  2. South Dakota Vs. Neville US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1983
  3. Mathews Vs. Eldridge US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1976
  4. Davis Vs. Alaska US Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1974
  5. Barber Vs. Page US Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1968
  6. United States Vs. Burr US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1895
  7. Brady Vs. Maryland US Supreme Court · May 13, 1963
  8. United States Vs. Bagley US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1985
  9. United States Vs. Agurs US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1976
  10. Douglas Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · Apr 05, 1965
  11. Cox Broadcasting Corp. Vs. Cohn US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1975
  12. New York Vs. Quarles US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1984
  13. Delaware Vs. Fensterer US Supreme Court · Nov 04, 1985
  14. United States Vs. Abel US Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1984
  15. Wardius Vs. Oregon US Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1973
  16. Bradley Vs. Richmond US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1913
  17. U.S. 39 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Pennsylvania v. Ritchie
    Search
  18. U.S. 39 (1987) Pennsylvania v. Ritchie
    Search
  19. Market Street R. Co. v. Railroad
    Search
  20. is true that the principles of finality have not been construed rigidly. As we recognized in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn
    Search
  21. a case is in this procedural posture, we have considered it sufficiently final to justify review. See, e.g., New York v. Quarles
    Search
  22. California v. Stewart
    Search
  23. U. S. 436 , 384 U. S. 498 , n. 71 (1966) (decided with Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  24. the right physically to face those who testify against him and the right to conduct cross-examination. Delaware v. Fensterer
    Search
  25. the declarant. See Ohio v. Roberts
    Search
  26. U. S. 56 (1980). Cf. United States v. Inadi
    Search
  27. a witness is biased, or that the testimony is exaggerated or Page 480 U. S. 52 unbelievable. United States v. Abel
    Search
  28. S. 316 (1974). Because this type of evidence can make the difference between conviction and acquittal, see Napue v. Illinois
    Search
  29. the Confrontation Clause's purpose of increasing the accuracy of the truth-finding process at trial. See United States v. Inadi
    Search
  30. U. S. 396 . The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted this argument, relying in part on our decision in Davis v. Alaska
    Search
  31. improper restrictions on the types of questions that defense counsel may ask during cross-examination. See California v. Green
    Search
  32. one's accusers is satisfied if defense counsel receives wide latitude at trial to question witnesses. Delaware v. Fensterer
    Search
  33. Id. at 474 U. S. 20 (emphasis in original). See also Ohio v. Roberts
    Search
  34. We reaffirmed this interpretation of the Confrontation Clause last Term in Delaware v. Fensterer
    Search
  35. The lower court's reliance on Davis v. Alaska
    Search
  36. the identity of witnesses, or to require the government to produce exculpatory evidence. But cf. United States v. Nixon
    Search
  37. by Ritchie under the broader protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See United States v. Bagley
    Search
  38. U. S. 83 (1963). See also Wardius v. Oregon
    Search
  39. evidence in its possession that is both favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment. United States v. Agurs
    Search
  40. evidence does not include the unsupervised authority to search through the Commonwealth's files. See United States v. Bagley
    Search
  41. U. S. 111 . Although the eye of an advocate may be helpful to a defendant in ferreting out information, Dennis v. United
    Search
  42. the contrary. In the typical case where a defendant makes only a general request for exculpatory material under Brady v. Maryland
    Search
  43. counsel has no constitutional right to conduct his own search of the State's files to argue relevance. See Weatherford v. Bursey
    Search
  44. Both Clauses are made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pointer v. Texas
    Search
  45. Washington v. Texas
    Search
  46. for the finality doctrine -- efficiency, judicial restraint, and federalism, see Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson
    Search
  47. Nothing in our decision in United States v. Ryan
    Search
  48. of delay, rather than being hindered, would be best served by resolving the issue. Cf. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn
    Search
  49. approach we normally have taken to finality questions. See generally Bradley v. Richmond
    Search
  50. of cross-examination by prohibiting questions that are prejudicial, irrelevant, or otherwise improper. See Delaware v. Van
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial