United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
Encyclopedia
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U. S. 858 (1982), is a case that determines the constitutionality of deporting aliens who might give testimony in criminal alien smuggling prosecutions. Because deporting alien witnesses might take away a testimony that would be both “material and favorable” to the defendant, it gives rise to a potential motion from the defense to dismiss the indictment under the Compulsory Process Clause
of the Sixth amendment
and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
. In United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, the Supreme Court
was faced with the issue that these clauses were violated because the aliens that were involved in the incident were deported though their testimony may have potentially helped the defendant. In order to prove their case, the defense had to show that the testimony of the deported witnessed may have been favorable to the defense in ways that the testimonies of the available witnesses were not. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that because the defendant failed to make a “plausible suggestion that the deported aliens possessed any material evidence that was not merely cumulative of other evidence,” the District Court properly denied the respondent’s motion to dismiss the indictment. This decision interprets the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process in the context of an alien-smuggling prosecution.
was created, the compulsory process clause of the Sixth Amendment was included to ensure that defendants in criminal cases have access to a fair trial. In order to receive a fair trial, the defendant has the right to present witnesses or evidence that would be beneficial to their case. The first time the scope of the compulsory processes clause was addressed was in 1807 by Chief Justice John Marshall
in the case of United States v. Burr. Aaron Burr
, accused of treason, attempted to use a letter written to President Thomas Jefferson
. The letter written by General James Wilkinson
, was to be used to prevent a prosecution witness from being able to testify. Marshall warned that the right given by the compulsory process clause must be protected by the courts. However, it was not addressed again until the Supreme Court’s decision in Washington v. Texas. In Washington v. Texas, four key elements of a defendant’s guarantee of compulsory process were established. The defendant has a right to insist on witnesses who are capable to give testimony that is relevant, material, and favorable to the defense. This decision required the courts to acknowledge the right of the accused to present a defense.
The next Supreme Court case to examine the scope of the compulsory process clause was United States v. Mendez-Rodriguez. In United States v. Mendez-Rodriguez, the defendant was indicted for transporting seven illegal-aliens in violation of Section 1324(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Federal government detained three of the Mexicans and deported the remaining four, a decision made by the Unites States Attorney’s office, prior to the defendant’s indictment. Mendez-Rodriguez testified that he was innocent because he did not know that the passengers in his car were illegal aliens. The District Court convicted Mendez-Rodriguez. However, in 1971, the Ninth Circuit, applying principles of Washington v. Texas, reversed and held that the government’s decision to deport the four illegal-aliens before obtaining a testimony not only violated the defendant’s due process guarantee, but his compulsory process rights as well. This decision provided the prevailing attitude for cases involving illegal-alien witnesses in relation to the compulsory process clause until the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal. The “essential elements” stated in US v. Mendez-Rodriguez were also summarized by the Court of Appeals’ opinion in United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal.
Valenzuela-Bernal, a citizen of Mexico, was arrested for transporting an illegal alien, Romero-Morales, in violation of section 1324(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
. This section “prohibits the knowing transportation of an alien illegally in the United States who last entered the country within three years prior to the date of the transportation.” Valenzuela-Bernal agreed to drive himself and five other passengers to Los Angeles. However, they were apprehended when they reached the checkpoint in Temecula. The three illegal-aliens were taken into custody and questioned by border patrol agents and not the United States Attorney. The government believed that none of the aliens offered any evidence that would have been “material and favorable” to the defendant. Two aliens were deported while Romero-Morales remained in the San Diego Metropolitan Correctional Center. Valenzuela-Bernal attempted to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the deportation of the illegal-alien witnesses violated his fifth amendment right to due process and sixth amendment right to call witnesses in formation of his defense. However, his motion was rejected. When the Ninth Circuit reviewed the indictment, it was dismissed based on the two elements used in US v. Mendez-Rodriguez: “government action denied the defendant access to a witness, and there was a loss of benefit to the defendant from the missing witness’s testimony.” The Justice Department retaliated by taking the case to the Supreme Court. They first argued that making “a reasonable good faith determination that the witnesses possess no material exculpatory evidence” allows them to deport alien witnesses without violating the rights mentioned in the fifth and sixth amendments. Their alternate position was that the defendant has to show how the deported witness could have provided material evidence in his favor in order to dismiss the indictment on grounds that his compulsory process rights were violated. The court was faced with the challenge of finding a balance between a defendant’s right to compulsory process and the government’s interests in the immediate deportation of illegal alien witnesses.
The responsibility of the Executive Branch faithfully to execute the immigration policy adopted by Congress justifies the prompt deportation of illegal-alien witnesses upon the Executive's good-faith determination that they possess no evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal prosecution. The mere fact that the Government deports such witnesses is not sufficient to establish a violation of the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A violation of these provisions requires some showing that the evidence lost would be both material and favorable to the defense.
The court decided to reverse the decision made by the Court of Appeals and to dismiss the indictment. The majority, seven, voted for the United States, while only two voted against it. “The Justice Department successfully argued before the court that the clause must be interpreted narrowly if a “proper and reasonable” balance is to be struck between the duties of the federal government, the interests of the criminal defendant, and the concerns of the alien witness.” The court concluded that in order to establish a violation of the compulsory process clause, the defendant must show that “The testimony of the deported witness would have been material and favorable to his defense in ways not merely cumulative to testimony of available witnesses.” Unless the defendant is able to do this, the indictment should not be dismissed.
In this case the respondent made no effort to explain what material, favorable evidence the deported passengers would have provided for his defense. Under the principles set forth today, he therefore failed to establish a violation of the Fifth or Sixth Amendment, and the District Court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed.
In weighing the balance between government interests and the compulsory process rights of the defendant, the Court found that the government, rather than the defendant, was capable of determining whether or not the alien witness could provide evidence material to the defense before ordering the witness’s deportation. In order to argue a violation of rights in the fifth and sixth amendments, the defendant is now faced with the “burden” of proving that the witness’s testimony would have been material and favorable without access to the witness. Ultimately, the judgment of the court favored the United States.
Truly, the Court giveth, and the Court taketh away. But surely a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to interview eyewitnesses to his alleged crime before they are whisked out of the country by his prosecutor. The Court's decision today makes a mockery of that right. Accordingly, I dissent.
The government has a duty to make sure that justice done so all other responsibilities “must yield before the rights to which an accused is constitutionally entitled.”
Compulsory Process Clause
The Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor."...
of the Sixth amendment
Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment may refer to:*Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution - part of the Bill of Rights.*Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland - ensured that certain adoption orders would not be found to be unconstitutional because they had not been made by a court....
and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
Fifth Amendment
Fifth Amendment may refer to:* Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights* Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, a referendum related to the Roman Catholic Church and other religious denominations...
. In United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, the Supreme Court
Supreme court
A supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of many legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, instance court, judgment court, high court, or apex court...
was faced with the issue that these clauses were violated because the aliens that were involved in the incident were deported though their testimony may have potentially helped the defendant. In order to prove their case, the defense had to show that the testimony of the deported witnessed may have been favorable to the defense in ways that the testimonies of the available witnesses were not. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that because the defendant failed to make a “plausible suggestion that the deported aliens possessed any material evidence that was not merely cumulative of other evidence,” the District Court properly denied the respondent’s motion to dismiss the indictment. This decision interprets the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process in the context of an alien-smuggling prosecution.
Background
When the Bill of RightsBill of rights
A bill of rights is a list of the most important rights of the citizens of a country. The purpose of these bills is to protect those rights against infringement. The term "bill of rights" originates from England, where it referred to the Bill of Rights 1689. Bills of rights may be entrenched or...
was created, the compulsory process clause of the Sixth Amendment was included to ensure that defendants in criminal cases have access to a fair trial. In order to receive a fair trial, the defendant has the right to present witnesses or evidence that would be beneficial to their case. The first time the scope of the compulsory processes clause was addressed was in 1807 by Chief Justice John Marshall
John Marshall
John Marshall was the Chief Justice of the United States whose court opinions helped lay the basis for American constitutional law and made the Supreme Court of the United States a coequal branch of government along with the legislative and executive branches...
in the case of United States v. Burr. Aaron Burr
Aaron Burr
Aaron Burr, Jr. was an important political figure in the early history of the United States of America. After serving as a Continental Army officer in the Revolutionary War, Burr became a successful lawyer and politician...
, accused of treason, attempted to use a letter written to President Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence and the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom , the third President of the United States and founder of the University of Virginia...
. The letter written by General James Wilkinson
James Wilkinson
James Wilkinson was an American soldier and statesman, who was associated with several scandals and controversies. He served in the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, but was twice compelled to resign...
, was to be used to prevent a prosecution witness from being able to testify. Marshall warned that the right given by the compulsory process clause must be protected by the courts. However, it was not addressed again until the Supreme Court’s decision in Washington v. Texas. In Washington v. Texas, four key elements of a defendant’s guarantee of compulsory process were established. The defendant has a right to insist on witnesses who are capable to give testimony that is relevant, material, and favorable to the defense. This decision required the courts to acknowledge the right of the accused to present a defense.
The next Supreme Court case to examine the scope of the compulsory process clause was United States v. Mendez-Rodriguez. In United States v. Mendez-Rodriguez, the defendant was indicted for transporting seven illegal-aliens in violation of Section 1324(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Federal government detained three of the Mexicans and deported the remaining four, a decision made by the Unites States Attorney’s office, prior to the defendant’s indictment. Mendez-Rodriguez testified that he was innocent because he did not know that the passengers in his car were illegal aliens. The District Court convicted Mendez-Rodriguez. However, in 1971, the Ninth Circuit, applying principles of Washington v. Texas, reversed and held that the government’s decision to deport the four illegal-aliens before obtaining a testimony not only violated the defendant’s due process guarantee, but his compulsory process rights as well. This decision provided the prevailing attitude for cases involving illegal-alien witnesses in relation to the compulsory process clause until the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal. The “essential elements” stated in US v. Mendez-Rodriguez were also summarized by the Court of Appeals’ opinion in United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal.
Historical Context
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal was argued on April 20, 1982 and the decision was made on July 2, 1982. In the 1980s, the cold war was still occurring between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. At this time, many changes occurred in the U.S. The population of the United States had increased by 11.4% since 1970 as indicated by the 1980 census. Also, the Refugee Act was passed, which reformed immigration law. In 1981, Ronald Reagan was elected into office as the Iran hostage crisis comes to an end. On November 5, 1982, the highest unemployment rate since 1940 was recorded at 10.4%.The Conflict
In cases involving transporting illegal aliens, the alien is considered a witness to the alleged crime. While the defendant may want the alien to be questioned by the defense counsel and called to testify at trial before being deported, Immigration services wants to return the foreigner to their country immediately without being questioned. In these cases, the defendant can move to have the indictment dismissed because the government’s action has deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right “to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” The executive, then, “must faithfully execute the immigration policy adopted by Congress, but it must also ensure that the criminal defendant receives the fundamental fairness inherent in due process.” United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal deals with this issue, causing the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of the compulsory process clause.Valenzuela-Bernal, a citizen of Mexico, was arrested for transporting an illegal alien, Romero-Morales, in violation of section 1324(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
Immigration and Nationality Act
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 , also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, restricted immigration into the U.S. and is codified under Title 8 of the United States Code. The Act governs primarily immigration to and citizenship in the United States. It has been in effect since...
. This section “prohibits the knowing transportation of an alien illegally in the United States who last entered the country within three years prior to the date of the transportation.” Valenzuela-Bernal agreed to drive himself and five other passengers to Los Angeles. However, they were apprehended when they reached the checkpoint in Temecula. The three illegal-aliens were taken into custody and questioned by border patrol agents and not the United States Attorney. The government believed that none of the aliens offered any evidence that would have been “material and favorable” to the defendant. Two aliens were deported while Romero-Morales remained in the San Diego Metropolitan Correctional Center. Valenzuela-Bernal attempted to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the deportation of the illegal-alien witnesses violated his fifth amendment right to due process and sixth amendment right to call witnesses in formation of his defense. However, his motion was rejected. When the Ninth Circuit reviewed the indictment, it was dismissed based on the two elements used in US v. Mendez-Rodriguez: “government action denied the defendant access to a witness, and there was a loss of benefit to the defendant from the missing witness’s testimony.” The Justice Department retaliated by taking the case to the Supreme Court. They first argued that making “a reasonable good faith determination that the witnesses possess no material exculpatory evidence” allows them to deport alien witnesses without violating the rights mentioned in the fifth and sixth amendments. Their alternate position was that the defendant has to show how the deported witness could have provided material evidence in his favor in order to dismiss the indictment on grounds that his compulsory process rights were violated. The court was faced with the challenge of finding a balance between a defendant’s right to compulsory process and the government’s interests in the immediate deportation of illegal alien witnesses.
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by Justice Rehnquist. He summarized that,The responsibility of the Executive Branch faithfully to execute the immigration policy adopted by Congress justifies the prompt deportation of illegal-alien witnesses upon the Executive's good-faith determination that they possess no evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal prosecution. The mere fact that the Government deports such witnesses is not sufficient to establish a violation of the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A violation of these provisions requires some showing that the evidence lost would be both material and favorable to the defense.
The court decided to reverse the decision made by the Court of Appeals and to dismiss the indictment. The majority, seven, voted for the United States, while only two voted against it. “The Justice Department successfully argued before the court that the clause must be interpreted narrowly if a “proper and reasonable” balance is to be struck between the duties of the federal government, the interests of the criminal defendant, and the concerns of the alien witness.” The court concluded that in order to establish a violation of the compulsory process clause, the defendant must show that “The testimony of the deported witness would have been material and favorable to his defense in ways not merely cumulative to testimony of available witnesses.” Unless the defendant is able to do this, the indictment should not be dismissed.
In this case the respondent made no effort to explain what material, favorable evidence the deported passengers would have provided for his defense. Under the principles set forth today, he therefore failed to establish a violation of the Fifth or Sixth Amendment, and the District Court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed.
In weighing the balance between government interests and the compulsory process rights of the defendant, the Court found that the government, rather than the defendant, was capable of determining whether or not the alien witness could provide evidence material to the defense before ordering the witness’s deportation. In order to argue a violation of rights in the fifth and sixth amendments, the defendant is now faced with the “burden” of proving that the witness’s testimony would have been material and favorable without access to the witness. Ultimately, the judgment of the court favored the United States.
Concurrence
Justice Blackmun and Justice O’Connor concurred in the judgment. Blackmun concurred because “At least a ‘plausible theory’ of how the testimony of the deported witnesses would be helpful to the defense must be offered. None was advanced here; therefore, the motion to dismiss the indictment was properly denied by the District Court.” Justice O’Connor also concurred, stating that, “In the case before us, the respondent made no plausible suggestion that the deported aliens possessed any material evidence that was not merely cumulative of other evidence. Under the standard I have proposed, the District Court properly denied the respondent's motion to dismiss the indictment. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment of the Court.”Dissenting Opinion
There were two votes against the United States. The two dissenting opinions were of Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall. They believed that the decision of the court was contradictory.Truly, the Court giveth, and the Court taketh away. But surely a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to interview eyewitnesses to his alleged crime before they are whisked out of the country by his prosecutor. The Court's decision today makes a mockery of that right. Accordingly, I dissent.
The government has a duty to make sure that justice done so all other responsibilities “must yield before the rights to which an accused is constitutionally entitled.”