governing state law would not permit him again to present his federal claims for review." Id., at 481.

We find that the case before us satisfies this standard because the Sixth Amendment issue will not survive for this Court to review, regardless of the outcome of the proceedings on remand. If the trial court decides that the CYS files do not contain relevant information, or that the nondisclosure was harmless, the Commonwealth will have prevailed and will have no basis to seek review. In this situation Ritchie's conviction will be reinstated, and the issue of whether defense counsel should have been given access will be moot. Should Ritchie appeal the trial court's decision, the Commonwealth's only method for preserving the constitutional issue would be by cross-claims. Thus the only way that this Court will be able to reach the Sixth Amendment issue is if Ritchie eventually files a petition for certiorari on the trial court's adverse ruling, and the Commonwealth files a cross-petition. When a case is in this procedural posture, we have considered it sufficiently final to justify review. See, e. g., New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649, 651, n. 1 (1984); South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U. S. 553, 558, n. 6 (1983).

Alternatively, if Ritchie is found to have been prejudiced by the withholding and is granted a new trial, the Commonwealth still will be unable to obtain a ruling from this Court. On retrial Ritchie either will be convicted, in which case the Commonwealth's ability to obtain review again will rest on Ritchie's willingness to appeal; or he will be acquitted, in which case the Commonwealth will be barred from seeking review by the Double Jeopardy Clause. See ibid.; California v. Stewart, 384 U. S. 436, 498, n. 71 (1966) (decided with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966)). Therefore, if this Court does not consider the constitutional claims now, there may well be no opportunity to do so in the future.'

7

'AS JUSTICE STEVENS' dissent points out, post, at 74, there is a third possibility. If the trial court finds prejudicial error and orders a retrial, the Commonwealth may attempt to take an immediate appeal of this order.

The Sixth Amendment issue has been finally decided by the highest court of Pennsylvania, and unless we review that decision, the harm that the Commonwealth seeks to avoidthe disclosure of the entire confidential file-will occur regardless of the result on remand. We thus cannot agree with the suggestion in JUSTICE STEVENS' dissent that if we were to dismiss this case and it was resolved on other grounds after disclosure of the file, "the Commonwealth would not have been harmed." Post, at 74. This hardly could be true, because of the acknowledged public interest in ensuring the confidentiality of CYS records. See n. 17, infra. Although this consideration is not dispositive, we have noted that "statutorily created finality requirements

See Pa. Rule App. Proc. 311(a). JUSTICE STEVENS' dissent suggests that because the Commonwealth can raise the Sixth Amendment issue again in this appeal, respect for the finality doctrine should lead us to dismiss. But even if we were persuaded that an immediate appeal would lie in this situation, it would not necessarily follow that the constitutional issue will survive. The appellate court could find that the failure to disclose was harmless, precluding further review by the Commonwealth. Alternatively, the appellate court could agree that the error was prejudicial, thus permitting the Commonwealth to claim that the Sixth Amendment does not compel disclosure. But as JUSTICE STEVENS' dissent recognizes, the Pennsylvania courts already have considered and resolved this issue in their earlier proceedings; if the Commonwealth were to raise it again in a new set of appeals, the courts below would simply reject the claim under the law-of-the-case doctrine. Law-of-the-case principles are not a bar to this Court's jurisdiction, of course, and thus JUSTICE STEVENS' dissent apparently would require the Commonwealth to raise a fruitless Sixth Amendment claim in the trial court, the Superior Court, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court still another time before we regrant certiorari on the question that is now before us.

The goals of finality would be frustrated, rather than furthered, by these wasteful and time-consuming procedures. Based on the unusual facts of this case, the justifications for the finality doctrine-efficiency, judicial restraint, and federalism, see Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120, 124 (1945); post, at 72—would be ill served by another round of litigation on an issue that has been authoritatively decided by the highest state court.

should, if possible, be construed so as not to cause crucial collateral claims to be lost and potentially irreparable injuries to be suffered." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 331, n. 11 (1976). We therefore reject Ritchie's claim that the Court lacks jurisdiction, and turn to the merits of the case before us.R

"Nothing in our decision in United States v. Ryan, 402 U. S. 530 (1971), requires a different result. In that case the respondent was served with a subpoena requiring him to produce business records for a grand jury. The District Court denied a motion to quash, and respondent appealed. We concluded that the District Court order was not appealable. Id., at 532. We rejected the contention that immediate review was necessary to avoid the harm of disclosing otherwise protected material, noting that parties who face such an order have the option of making the decision "final” simply by refusing to comply with the subpoena.

Although there are similarities between this case and Ryan, the analogy is incomplete. In Ryan the Court was concerned about the "necessity for expedition in the administration of the criminal law," id., at 533, an interest that would be undermined if all pretrial orders were immediately appealable. Ryan also rests on an implicit assumption that unless a party resisting discovery is willing to risk being held in contempt, the significance of his claim is insufficient to justify interrupting the ongoing proceedings. That is not the situation before us. Here the trial already has taken place, and the issue reviewed by the Commonwealth appellate courts. The interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of delay, rather than being hindered, would be best served by resolving the issue. Cf. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S., 469, 477-478 (1975) (exceptions to finality doctrine justified in part by need to avoid economic waste and judicial delay).

We also reject Ritchie's suggestion that we should dismiss this action and allow the case to return to the trial court, so that the Commonwealth can formally refuse to comply with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision and be held in contempt. Here we are not faced merely with an individual's assertion that a subpoena is unduly burdensome, but with a holding of a State Supreme Court that the legislative interest in confidentiality will not be given effect. The Commonwealth's interest in immediate review of this case is obvious and substantial. Contrary to JUSTICE STEVENS' dissent, we do not think that the finality doctrine requires a new round of litigation and appellate review simply to give the Commonwealth "the chance to decide whether to comply with the order." Post, at 77. See n. 7, supra. To prolong the proceedings on this basis would be incon

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Ritchie, through his lawyer, has the right to examine the full contents of the CYS records. The court found that this right of access is required by both the Confrontation Clause and the Compulsory Process Clause. We discuss these constitutional

provisions in turn.

A

The Confrontation Clause provides two types of protections for a criminal defendant: the right physically to face those who testify against him, and the right to conduct crossexamination. Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U. S. 15, 18-19 (1985) (per curiam). Ritchie does not allege a violation of the former right. He was not excluded from any part of the trial, nor did the prosecutor improperly introduce out-ofcourt statements as substantive evidence, thereby depriving Ritchie of the right to "confront" the declarant. See Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56 (1980). Cf. United States v. Inadi, 475 U. S. 387 (1986). Instead, Ritchie claims that by denying him access to the information necessary to prepare his defense, the trial court interfered with his right of crossexamination.

Ritchie argues that he could not effectively question his daughter because, without the CYS material, he did not know which types of questions would best expose the weaknesses in her testimony. Had the files been disclosed, Ritchie argues that he might have been able to show that the daughter made statements to the CYS counselor that were inconsistent with her trial statements, or perhaps to reveal that the girl acted with an improper motive. Of course, the right to cross-examine includes the opportunity to show that a witness is biased, or that the testimony is exaggerated or

sistent with the “pragmatic" approach we normally have taken to finality questions. See generally Bradley v. Richmond School Bd., 416 U. S. 696, 722-723, n. 28 (1974) ("This Court has been inclined to follow a 'pragmatic approach' to the question of finality") (citation omitted).

unbelievable. United States v. Abel, 469 U. S. 45, 50 (1984); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U. S. 308, 316 (1974). Because this type of evidence can make the difference between conviction and acquittal, see Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264, 269 (1959), Ritchie argues that the failure to disclose information that might have made cross-examination more effective undermines the Confrontation Clause's purpose of increasing the accuracy of the truth-finding process at trial. United States v. Inadi, supra, at 396.

See

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted this argument, relying in part on our decision in Davis v. Alaska, supra. In Davis the trial judge prohibited defense counsel from questioning a witness about the latter's juvenile criminal record, because a state statute made this information presumptively confidential. We found that this restriction on cross-examination violated the Confrontation Clause, despite Alaska's legitimate interest in protecting the identity of juvenile offenders. 415 U. S., at 318-320. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court apparently interpreted our decision in Davis to mean that a statutory privilege cannot be maintained when a defendant asserts a need, prior to trial, for the protected information that might be used at trial to impeach or otherwise undermine a witness' testimony. See 509 Pa., at 365– 367, 502 A. 2d, at 152-153.

If we were to accept this broad interpretation of Davis, the effect would be to transform the Confrontation Clause into a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial discovery. Nothing in the case law supports such a view. The opinions of this Court show that the right to confrontation is a trial right, designed to prevent improper restrictions on the types of questions that defense counsel may ask during crossexamination. See California v. Green, 399 U. S. 149, 157 (1970) (“[I]t is this literal right to 'confront' the witness at the time of trial that forms the core of the values furthered by the Confrontation Clause"); Barber v. Page, 390 U. S. 719, 725 (1968) ("The right to confrontation is basically a trial