07-3552 Rizzo v. Smith

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Sexual assault; in camera review

Where the trial court conducted an in camera review of the complainant's mental health records in a sexual assault trial, the defendant was not denied his rights under the Confrontation Clause.

"The state supreme court's conclusion was certainly reasonable. Ritchie says that due process requires confidential information that is potentially exculpatory to be submitted to the trial court for an in camera review. That's exactly what Rizzo got. The state trial judge conducted an in camera review of Dr. Pucci's files and found no exculpatory information.

Indeed, the judge found that the information in Dr. Pucci's files did not include anything different than the six-page summary provided to Rizzo. Moreover, the Ritchie plurality flatly rejected the argument that a defendant is entitled to access confidential records simply to aid in cross-examination: '[T]he Confrontation Clause only guarantees "an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish."' Id. at 53 (quoting Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20 (1985)). Because Rizzo has not identified any clearly established Supreme Court precedent supporting his claim, the state supreme court's decision was not unreasonable."

Affirmed.

07-3552 Rizzo v. Smith

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Gorence, Mag. J., Evans, J.

Full Text