Document: 480 U.S. 39 107 S.Ct. 989 94 L.Ed.2d 40 PENNSYLVANIA, Petitionerv.George F. RITCHIE. No. 85-1347. Argued Dec. 3, 1986. Decided Feb. 24, 1987. Syllabus Respondent was charged with various sexual offenses against his minor daughter. The matter referred to the Children and Youth Services (CYS), a protective service agency established by Pennsylvania investigate cases of suspected child mistreatment neglect. During pretrial discovery, respondent served CYS subpoena, seeking access records related immediate charges, as well certain earlier compiled when investigated separate report that respondent's children were being abused. refused comply claiming privileged under statute which provides all must be kept confidential, subject specified exceptions. One exceptions is may disclose reports "court competent jurisdiction pursuant court order." At an in-chambers hearing in trial court, argued he entitled information because file might contain names favorable witnesses, other, unspecified exculpatory evidence. Although judge did not examine entire file, order disclosure. trial, resulted conviction jury, main witness him daughter, who cross-examined at length defense counsel. On appeal, Superior Court held failure daughter's statements contained violated Confrontation Clause Sixth Amendment. vacated remanded for further proceedings determine whether new should granted. State's Supreme that, denying had both Compulsory Process Clauses Amendment, case if necessary. concluded counsel review any useful Held: judgment affirmed part reversed part, remanded. 509 Pa. 357, 502 A.2d 148 (1985), 1 Justice POWELL delivered opinion Parts I, II, III-B, III-C, IV, concluding that: 1. This does lack on ground decision below "final or decree," required 28 U.S.C. § 1257(3). this has no interlocutory judgment, proper where federal claim been finally decided, merits state courts come, but later issue cannot whatever ultimate outcome case. Here, Amendment will survive regardless remand. decided highest Pennsylvania, unless reviews decision, harm State seeks avoid—the disclosure confidential file—will occur result Pp.55-56 2 2. Criminal defendants have right government's assistance compelling attendance witnesses put before jury evidence influence determination guilt. However, never guarantees discover identity require government produce Instead, claims such traditionally evaluated broader protections Due Fourteenth process greater area than those afforded due process, thus more properly are considered reference process. Pp. 55-56. 3 3. Under principles, obligation turn over its possession accused material guilt punishment. Evidence only there reasonable probability disclosed, proceeding would different. public interest protecting sensitive strong, necessarily prevent circumstances. Because Legislature contemplated some use judicial proceedings, reason believe relevant disclosed determined "material" accused's defense. ordered remand proceedings. reviewed it contains probably changed trial. If does, given information, nondisclosure harmless beyond doubt, free reinstate prior conviction. 57-58. 4 4. erred holding allowed information. A defendant's include unsupervised authority search files make materiality Both interests ensuring fair can protected fully requiring submitted camera review. To allow full type sacrifice unnecessarily abuse 59-61. 5 POWELL, joined THE CHIEF JUSTICE, WHITE, O'CONNOR, Part III-A Clause. There merit necessary prepare defense, interfered cross-examination guaranteed could effectively question daughter because, without material, know types questions best expose weaknesses her testimony. constitutionally compelled rule discovery. confrontation right, guaranteeing opportunity effective cross-examination, way extent wish. Pp.51-54. 6 BLACKMUN limitations placed violation if, here, defendant denied possible crucial prosecution witness. avoid problems simply deciding hinder basis desire protect confidentiality particular class individuals, pretrial, rather stage. procedure set out lower follow adequate address problem. 61-66. 7 J., announced respect REHNQUIST, C.J., BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, III-A, WHITE joined. filed concurring post, p. ---. BRENNAN, dissenting opinion, MARSHALL, STEVENS, SCALIA, 8 Edward Marcus Clark, petitioner. 9 John H. Corbett, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., amicus curiae support below. 10 O'CONNOR join. 11 presented what investigative concerning yield criminal 12 * As efforts combat abuse, Commonwealth investigating In 1979, George Ritchie rape, involuntary deviate intercourse, incest, corruption minor. victim alleged attacks 13-year-old claimed she assaulted two three times per week during previous four years. girl reported incidents police, then CYS. 13 requested 1978, unidentified source Ritchie's abused.1 law. other obtained course investigation specific exceptions.2 Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 11, 2215(a)(5) (Purdon Supp.1986). 14 moved sanctioned failing honor motion chambers. He also medical believed 1978 investigation. acknowledged examined accepted representative's assertion record.3 files.4 See App. 72a. 15 attempt rebut testimony, length, questioning aspects reasons reporting sooner. Except routine evidentiary rulings, limitation scope cross-examination. close convicted counts, sentenced years prison. 16 appeal Court, claimed, inter alia, contents applied States through Amendment.5 agreed constitutional violation, accordingly 324 Pa.Super. 557, 472 220 (1984). ruled, however, entitle sought. It remand, first camera, release verbatim made counselor. But record available lawyer, limited purpose allowing argue relevance statements. stated prosecutor error. prejudicial, Id., 567-568, A.2d, 226. 17 Commonwealth, (1985). agree Rather, Ritchie, evidence.6 stated: "When materials gathered become arrow inculpation, person inculpated fundamental provenance aims it." 367, 153. unpersuaded Commonwealth's argument already ruled infirmity court's unlawfully "the eyes perspective advocate," see places neutral not. Ibid. 18 light substantial conflicting we granted certiorari. 476 1139, 106 2244, 90 690 (1986). We now affirm reverse inconsistent opinion. II 19 Before turning questions, lacks jurisdiction, decree." 1257(3); Market Street R. Co. v. Railroad Comm'n California, 548, 551, 65 770, 772, 89 L.Ed. 1171 (1945). Normally finality doctrine 1257(3) satisfied still conduct substantive rights parties issues resolved. Ibid.; Radio Station WOW, Inc. Johnson, 326 120, 123-127, 1475, 1477-1480, 2092 argues standard final, several scheduled courts: minimum present arguments prejudicial; after merits. moot either these stages, decline until completed. 20 true principles construed rigidly. recognized Cox Broadcasting Corp. Cohn, 420 469, 95 1029, 43 328 (1975), least categories even anticipated court. states consider cases: 21 "[W]here had, . [I]n cases, party interim ultimately prevails merits, mooted; lose governing law permit again review." 481, S.Ct., 1039. 22 find us satisfies review, decides do harmless, prevailed seek situation reinstated, moot. Should method preserving cross-claims. Thus able reach eventually petition certiorari adverse ruling, cross-petition. When procedural posture, sufficiently final justify See, e.g., New York Quarles, 467 649, 651, n. 1, 104 2626, 2629, 81 550 (1984); South Dakota Neville, 459 553, 558, 6, 103 916, 919, 74 748 (1983). 23 Alternatively, found prejudiced withholding unable obtain ruling from Court. retrial convicted, ability rest willingness appeal; acquitted, barred Double Jeopardy ibid.; California Stewart, 384 436, 498, 71, 86 1602, 1640, 694 (1966) (decided Miranda Arizona, (1966)). Therefore, now, so future.7 24 suggestion STEVENS' dissent dismiss resolved grounds harmed." Post, 74. hardly true, records. 17, infra. consideration dispositive, noted "statutorily created requirements should, possible, cause collateral lost potentially irreparable injuries suffered." Mathews Eldridge, 424 319, 331, 96 893, 901, 47 (1976). therefore reject us.8 III 25 discuss provisions turn. A. 26 defendant: physically face testify him, Delaware Fensterer, 474 15, 18-19, 292, 294, 88 (1985) (per curiam ). allege former right. excluded nor improperly introduce out-of-court evidence, thereby depriving "confront" declarant. Ohio Roberts, 448 56, 100 2531, 597 (1980). Cf. United Inadi, 475 387, 1121, 390 27 Had show counselor statements, perhaps reveal acted improper motive. Of course, cross-examine includes biased, testimony exaggerated unbelievable. Abel, 469 45, 50, 105 465, 468, 83 450 Davis Alaska, 415 308, 316, 1105, 1110, 347 (1974). difference between acquittal, Napue Illinois, 360 264, 269, 79 1173, 1177, 1217 (1959), undermines Clause's increasing accuracy truth-finding supra, U.S., 396, 1126. argument, relying our supra. prohibited about latter's juvenile record, presumptively confidential. restriction Clause, despite Alaska's legitimate offenders. 318-320, 1111-1112. apparently interpreted mean statutory privilege maintained asserts need, used impeach otherwise undermine witness' 365-367, 152-153. 29 accept broad interpretation Davis, effect transform into Nothing supports view. opinions designed restrictions ask Green, 399 149, 157, 1930, 1934, 489 (1970) ("[I]t literal 'confront' time forms core values furthered Clause"); Barber Page, 719, 725, 1318, 1322, 255 (1968) ("The basically right"). power contradicting unfavorable testimony.9 confront one's accusers receives wide latitude witnesses. 20, 294. short, "an way, extent, wish." 294 (emphasis original). 73, 12, 2543, (except "extraordinary inquiry 'effectiveness' [of cross-examination] required"). 30 reaffirmed last Term case, expert witness, remember scientific test form inability recall frustrated counsel's discredit violation. implicated, "for limit nature way." 19, Fensterer accord decisions upheld infringement court-imposed questioning.10 31 reliance Alaska misplaced. though affected credibility. error confidential; "to facts jurors appropriately draw inferences relating reliability witness." 318, 1111. Similarly, file; impermissible prevented lawyer cross-examining fully, B 32 suggested Amendment's guarantee compulsory learning "witnesses favor," file. Court's point unclear, uncovering arguably regard existence state-created restriction—here, files. 33 little occasion contours most celebrated analysis came Virginia 1807, treason misdemeanor trials Aaron Burr. Chief Marshall, presided judge, Burr's serve subpoena President Jefferson, requesting production allegedly incriminating evidence.11 Burr, F.Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va.1807). Despite implications Burr procedure, rarely factor next 160 years.12 More recently, articulated secured Our establish, minimum, guilt.13 34 squarely cf. Nixon, 418 683, 709, 711, 3090, 3108, 3109, 41 1039 (1974) (suggesting evidence). raised Bagley, 473 667, 3375, 87 481 (1985); Brady Maryland, 373 83, 1194, 215 (1963). Wardius Oregon, 412 470, 93 2208, 37 82 (1973). applicability unsettled, precedents addressing fairness establish clear framework adopt purposes conclude need decide today how differ enough facts, wellsettled Agurs, 427 97, 2392, 49 342 (1976); 87, 1196. different terminologies define "materiality," majority agreed, "[e]vidence 'reasonable probability' sufficient confidence outcome." 682, 3383 (opinion J.); id., 685, 3385 J.). 36 stage, impossible say innocence, neither seen required, renders privileged. Requiring argued, override mere speculation "might" recognize prevents grants absolute shield eyes. 42 Pa.Cons.Stat. 5945.1(b) (1982) (unqualified communications assault counselors victims).14 shall circumstances, including directed order. Title Given prosecutions. absence apparent policy contrary, determines accused. 38 orders conviction.15 C end analysis, irrelevant, favor whenever alleges appropriate assessing grant disputed confidentiality. agree. 675, 3380; 111, 2401. eye advocate helpful ferreting Dennis States, 855, 875, 1840, 1851, 973 (1966), held—even restricting disclosure—that alone Settled practice contrary. typical makes general request (1963), disclosed. Unless becomes aware withheld brings attention,16 prosecutor's final. Defense own relevance. Weatherford Bursey, 429 545, 559, 97 837, 846, 51 (1977) ("There discovery create one"). (as Commonwealth) denies benefits "advocate's eye," note discretion unbounded. (e.g., report), directly materiality. Moreover, duty ongoing; deemed immaterial upon original examination important progress, obligated child-abuse defendants, counsel, seriously Pennsylvania's uncover treat abuse. Child one difficult crimes detect prosecute, large often except victim. child's feelings vulnerability unwillingness come forward particularly acute abuser parent. essential state-designated whom turn, assurance Relatives neighbors suspect willing they their identities protected. Recognizing this, Commonwealth—like States17—has commendable effort assure victims speak fear demand Neither precedent common sense requires result. IV disagree allows An destroying involved investigations. 44 ordered. 45 judgment. 46 I join write separately, plurality's conclusion, expressed POWELL's protects am agreement much BRENNAN says, dissent. my view, plurality recognizes confers Ante, 51. believes long For plurality, turns questioning; dismisses—or, best, downplays—any effectiveness at51-52. Thus, confidently creates nothing at52. 48 divorce situations empty formality. seems recognize, ante, 51-52, primary call met demonstrate biased clearly events gives attorney pursue avenue apart goals them, simple satisfy ) example. rejected challenge brought hair victim, killing, forcibly removed. summary reversal plenary consideration, 23, 296, easy why there. expert's credibility conclusions undermined demonstration forgotten analysis. Simple provided demonstration, reinforced 295.1 50 where, contrast, fact actual injury position. (1974), key hand refer prohibiting admission proceeding. 310-311, 1107-1108. revealed probation same burglary charged. Accordingly, possibility existed attempting towards attention police him. Davis' permitted "question" bias, bias denied. 313-314, 1108-1109. useless actively harmed observed: "On permitted, thought engaged speculative baseless line attack blameless or, objection it, 'rehash' cross-examination." "[p]etitioner 52 similarities differences exist. questioning. They critical witness: while hand, rule, 311, 1108, 1; similar problem 43-44, likely reaction each same—a doing harassing 53 technical sense, prohibition. occurred stage inquiry. Respondent's client's help prohibition preparations. believe, 54 disagreement reading concur Here company BRENNAN. prescribed 58. certainly demonstrating revealing inconsistencies statements.2 reviewing future impeachment constitute sort whose unavailability points out, moreover, ongoing. Impeachment precisely as, example, testified.3 55 MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 56 regarding separately narrow applicable That ignores significantly infringed occurring outside itself, wholesale denial significant viewed vague speculations something insufficient permitting deprived view deprivation 57 plain "a [the Clause] cross-examination," Douglas Alabama, 380 415, 418, 85 1074, 1076, 934 (1965). "[P]robably one, experienced lawsuits, deny value exposing falsehood bringing truth case," Pointer Texas, 400, 404, 1065, 1068, 923 scrupulously guarded "restrictions imposed 18, 58 restricted preclusion itself pursue. ----, (citing cases). logic concern engage suggest, prohibits limitations.* foreclosed examination. Where complete, position formulate grounded foreclosed, interrogation judge. Nonetheless, occurs topic off limits. 59 absent Jencks 353 657, 77 1007, 1103 (1957), persons agents testified "singularly important" defendant, said, 1012, effort. inspect "with cross-examination" "[is] shown relate 669, 1014. Palermo 343, 1217, 1287 based supervisory Constitution, "but idle commands Constitution surface decision." 362-363, 1229-1230 (BRENNAN, result). Palermo, specifically discussed implicated Jencks. 362, 1229. 60 insists prerequisite finding pursuing Government contended obtaining witnesses' showing inconsistency noting, "[t]he determining conflict arise testified, admits conflict, helpless inspecting reports." 667-668, 1012-1013. 187, 191 14,694) Va. 1807) ("It objected passages letter pointed out. done withheld?"). identify subjects exploration today, partial denials give rise violations, cannot. 61 Wade, 388 218, 1926, 1149 (1967), undercut identification lineup applicable. premised explicitly rights. presence necessary, preserve meaningfully itself." 227, 1932. proceeding, serious disadvantage calling "inability reconstruct unfairness lineup" "deprive defendant] courtroom identification." 232, 1934. continued: 62 "Insofar fruit scrutiny safeguard 400 [85 923." 235, 1936 added). 63 Since "since avert prejudice meaningful ", 236, 1937 added) (footnote omitted), Wade present. 64 exclusion session posing observation conducted. indicates preclude restricted. premise opposite: very concerned developing experience lineup. suggests conclusion issue. While focused indicated context. probation. barrier revelation judge's inquire Yet adjudications inadmissible Any familiar doubt pertaining obvious purposes. foreclosure just sought probationary status. underlying 66 creation impediment undercuts erected itself. testifying Jencks, impeachment: 67 "Every knows impeaching recording dulls treacherous memory. Flat contradiction version inconsistency. omission contrast emphasis treatment, testing testimony." 1013. 68 accuser intended fundamentally provide accusations scrutiny. 65, 2538, (1980) ("underlying purpose" augment factfinding means evidence"). Essential account compare versions recounted. Denial imposes handicap strikes heart 69 nullify damage overly restrictive notes, regarded affect Prior appear force, since utility lie subtle potential diminishing prospect enhanced ----. By informed concerns, insisted perform evaluation, "[b]ecause adequately equipped discrediting Government's furthering defense." 668-669, 1013-1014. congruent, independent significance infringements 70 adopts unwarranted provision. 71 SCALIA join, 72 jurisdiction. basic limits Congress "[f]inal judgments decrees rendered had." 1257. obvious, notions efficiency, restraint, federalism. Construction Laborers Curry, 371 542, 550, 531, 536, 514 (1963); 124, 1478, Over consistently strict reviewability state-court remanding orders. plethora lead settlement termination litigation, application rules unquestionably countless reviewed. consequence—indeed, consequence—I wise worthy preservation. 73 principle courts. applies "where case." concern, petitioning example phenomenon appellate suppressed. forced proceed conceivably and, double jeopardy chance admissible fit exception. Were scenarios First, (CYS) refuse documents penalty contempt, appeals taken, Ryan, 402 530, 91 1580, (1971). documents, stand having declined Finally, recourse risk unreviewable exception apply. law, 75 Rule Appellate Procedure 311(a)(5) affords "claims committed law." evaluating harmless-error qualify provision.1 could, reassert here. undoubtedly law-of-the-case doctrine, bar claims. Barclay Florida, 463 939, 946, 3418, 3422, 1134 (1983); Hathorn Lovorn, 457 255, 261-262, 102 2421, 2425-2426, 824 (1982); generally Stern, E. Gressman, & S. Shapiro, Practice 132 (6th ed. 1986). 76 irrevocably takes relies upon. astonishing hear reinstated moot," pass at48. wholly contrary tradition avoiding, reaching decide, disposed reasons. Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 346-347, 466, 482-483, 80 688 (1936) (Brandeis, concurring); Rescue Army Municipal 331 549, 571, 1409, 1421, 1666 (1947). Indeed, explained unnecessary adjudication demands requirement. Republic Natural Gas Oklahoma, 334 62, 70-71, 972, 977-978, 92 1212 (1948). breached subsequent too late. at48-49, 7. fails longstanding will, harmful, remedy individual immediately contempt issued. exemplified (1971), District quash duces tecum commanding located Kenya. Appeals appealable reversed, explaining: "Respondent continued validity Cobbledick 309 323 [60 540, 84 783] (1940), obey contest subsequently cited obey. Respondent, apply circumstances asserts, undertake burden complying 'powerless mischief order.' Perlman 247 7, [38 417, 419, 950] (1918). 78 "We think misapprehends thrust cases. complies thereafter undo exerted comply. compliance open respondent. If, claims, unduly burdensome unlawful, litigate event contentions ripe necessity expedition administration justifies putting resist desired choice order, resistance concomitant appeal. supra; Alexander 201 117 [26 356, 686] (1906); Blue, 251 [86 1416, 510] (1966); DiBella 369 121 [82 654, 614] (1962); Carroll 354 394 [77 1332, 1442] (1957). Only render whatsoever individual's principle." 532-533, 1581-1582. instructed inspection Kenya, troublesome objects compliance.2 Ryan yet condition imposed.3 rationale tried, expedite litigation. 48-49, persuaded so—if certiorari, year ago—but were, efficient enforcement precludes case-by-case appropriate. adhering firm discourage time-consuming piecemeal once here heard, natural reluctance hold misguided, strain name short-term efficiency long-term relaxation requirement inefficient. goal expediting worst thing extend open-ended invitation litigants interrupt visits writ took place period molested, undisputed tell assaults time. No charges part: "(a) section [Pa.Stat.Ann., 2214 Supp.1986) ], act summaries written obtained, photographs X-rays taken instances department, county youth social to: "(5) 2215(a) five confidentiality, court-ordered amended 1982 increase number officials 2215(a)(9). But, cooperated released detrimental person's safety. 2215(c). read "50 pages extensive record." knowledge hearing. 68a. contents. process: "In prosecutions, enjoy confronted him; [and] favor." obligatory 403-406, 1067-1069, (1965) (Confrontation Clause); Washington 14, 17-19, 1920, 1922-1923, 1019 (1967) (Compulsory Clause). take "appropriate steps" guard dissemination including, "fashioning orders, conducting camera." 368, 16, 153, 16. These steps [Ritchie], gain information." third possibility. finds prejudicial retrial, Pa.Rule App.Proc. 311(a). raise dismiss. situation, survive. precluding Commonwealth. compel recognizes, proceedings; appeals, doctrine. Law-of-the-case fruitless another regrant us. frustrated, furthered, wasteful procedures. Based unusual justifications doctrine—efficiency, federalism, (1945); ---- - ill round litigation authoritatively business grand jury. quash, appealed. appealable. 532, 1581. contention disclosing noting option making "final" refusing subpoena. analogy incomplete. "necessity law," 533, 1587, rests implicit assumption resisting interrupting ongoing place, economy avoidance delay, hindered, resolving 477-478, 1037-1038, (1975) (exceptions justified economic waste delay). action return formally contempt. faced merely burdensome, legislative effect. substantial. Contrary dissent, 77. prolong "pragmatic" approach normally questions. Bradley Richmond School Bd., 416 696, 722-723, 28, 2006, 2021-2022, ("This inclined 'pragmatic approach' finality") (citation omitted). discussion issue, rights, preparing Also, alter traditional control improper. Van Arsdall, 673, 678, 1431, 1435, 674 supra (denial bias); (1974); Chambers Mississippi, 410 284, 1038, (1973) witness); Smith 129, 748, 956 real trial); codefendant). asserted interference Compare McCray 386 300, 311-313, 1056, 1062-1064, (no informant's hearing), Roviaro 53, 623, 639 (1957) (on presented, trial). Westen, Mich.L.Rev. 125-126 exclusively 'trial right'. base testimony") (footnotes omitted) (hereinafter Westen). consisted sent Jefferson General James Wilkinson showed planning invade Mexico up control. After so, turned edited letter. excellent Westen 101-108. pre-1967 mention Pate Robinson, 383 375, 378, 836, 838, 815 Blackmer 284 421, 442, 252, 256, 375 (1932); Duzee, 140 169, 173, 758, 760, (1891); Ex parte Harding, 120 782, 780, (1887). 108, 164. Cool 409 100, 354, 335 (1972) ); (1967). Webb 95, 351, 330 (decision express anyone, law-enforcement personnel. particularized material. Brief Petitioner (quoting 109-110, 2400-2401, (1976) item undisclosed helped 'materiality' sense")). establishing Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 858, 867, 3440, 3446, 1193 ("He plausible defense"). depend request, degree specificity bearing assessment nondisclosure. 682-683, 3383-3384, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 16(d)(2); 305(E) ("If failed [mandating evidence], enter deems circumstances"). importance evidenced Columbia statutes official ex rel. K. de Kamp et al. Amici Curiae (listing illustrative statutes). Besharov, Legal Aspects Reporting Known Suspected Abuse Neglect, Vill.L.Rev. 458, 508-512 (1978). remark use, at53, inquiries actually opposite. observed imply when, serves distinction 676, 3380. falls within "[w]hen 'reliability determinative innocence.' " 677, 3381, quoting Giglio 405 150, 154, 763, 766, (1972). suggest direct concerns. 3381. applied. 684, 1438, contends supported (1970), (1968), essentially statement, permissible precluded hearsay concerns Barber, called testify, excused preliminary providing afford Green attached Blevins, 453 422 (whether offered jury's finding" law); Melton, 628, 629, 168 328, 329 (1961) sole introduction error" Durah-El, 344 511, 514, 2, 496 1222, 1224, ineffective "error law"); Carney, 310 456 1072, 1073, (1983) curative instruction law"). represents CYS, Office Attorney Allegheny County. case; brief expressing views. inappropriate relax spare documents. hands 950 (1918); 1582, presents far situation. go, prosecutor, implement Protective Law. County, behalf County Amicus Support Nor 691-692, 3099-3100, himself rejection executive privilege. Judge Friendly explained, unique Presidency "wholly inapplicable" agents. National Super Suds, Mercantile Exchange, 591 F.2d 174, 177 (CA2 1979); Newton Co., 726 (CA9 1984); Winner, 641 825, 830 (CA10 1981); re 596 58, (CA2), cert. denied, 444 903, 217, 141 (1979); Grand Jury Proceedings (Wright II), 654 268, 270 (CA3), 454 1098, 671, (1981); Branch Phillips Petroleum 638 873, 877-879 (CA5 1981).

Category: 0