United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
458 U.S. 858 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause or the Sixth Amendment's Compulsory Process Clause due to the government's deportation of potential witnesses, a criminal defendant must make a plausible showing that the lost testimony would have been both material and favorable to their defense.
Facts:
- Juan Valenzuela-Bernal, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States illegally on March 23, 1980.
- Six days later, Valenzuela-Bernal agreed to drive a car containing five other passengers to Los Angeles in exchange for waiving the smugglers' fee for his own transport.
- When approaching the Border Patrol checkpoint at Temecula, California, Valenzuela-Bernal accelerated through the checkpoint after being motioned to stop.
- After a high-speed chase, Valenzuela-Bernal stopped the car and fled on foot along with the passengers.
- Border Patrol agents apprehended Valenzuela-Bernal and three of the passengers.
- The apprehended passengers admitted they were in the U.S. illegally and identified Valenzuela-Bernal as the driver.
- The U.S. government detained one passenger, Enrique Romero-Morales, as a material witness for the prosecution.
- The government determined the other two apprehended passengers possessed no material evidence and deported them to Mexico.
Procedural Posture:
- Valenzuela-Bernal was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California for transporting an illegal alien.
- Valenzuela-Bernal filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, claiming the deportation of two potential witnesses violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
- The District Court, a trial court, denied the motion.
- Following a bench trial on stipulated evidence, the District Court found Valenzuela-Bernal guilty.
- Valenzuela-Bernal (as appellant) appealed the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the conviction, holding that the deportation violated Valenzuela-Bernal's constitutional rights.
- The United States (as petitioner) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the government's deportation of potential alien witnesses, before a defendant has an opportunity to interview them, violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process and Sixth Amendment right to Compulsory Process without a showing by the defendant that the witnesses' testimony would have been material and favorable to the defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No. The government's deportation of alien witnesses does not violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendments unless the defendant makes a plausible showing that the witnesses' testimony would have been both material and favorable to the defense. The government has a dual responsibility to enforce criminal laws and to execute the immigration policy enacted by Congress, which includes the prompt deportation of illegal aliens. The Ninth Circuit's 'conceivable benefit' test is a virtual per se rule that is too broad, as the Sixth Amendment only guarantees compulsory process for 'witnesses in his favor.' Drawing on precedent from cases like Brady v. Maryland, the Court holds that a defendant must demonstrate the materiality of the lost evidence. While a defendant cannot be expected to provide a detailed account of the lost testimony, they must make some plausible showing of how the testimony would have been material and favorable, and not merely cumulative to the testimony of available witnesses. Valenzuela-Bernal made no such showing.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
No. Concurring in the judgment, I agree that the defendant must offer at least a 'plausible theory' of how the testimony of the deported witnesses would have been helpful to the defense. Since no such theory was advanced in this case, the District Court properly denied the motion to dismiss the indictment.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
No. While I concur in the judgment, the majority's standard may not adequately protect a defendant's rights. A preferable approach, implemented under the Court's supervisory powers, would be to require the government to detain potential alien witnesses for a brief period to allow defense counsel to interview them. If the government deports witnesses without providing this opportunity, sanctions should be available if the defendant can then set forth a plausible theory of how the lost testimony was material and not merely cumulative. Because Valenzuela-Bernal made no plausible suggestion that the deported aliens possessed material evidence, the judgment is correct.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes. The government's actions violate the defendant's constitutional rights. The Court's holding is a contradiction: it recognizes a right to compulsory process but allows the government to make it impossible for the defendant to exercise that right by deporting witnesses before they can be interviewed. The government's duty to provide a fair trial is superior to its other responsibilities, such as immigration enforcement. Under the principles of Roviaro v. United States, the decision of whether a witness's testimony might be helpful is for the accused to make after an interview, not for the government to decide unilaterally. A defendant has a constitutional right to at least interview eyewitnesses to the alleged crime before they are deported.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a circuit split by rejecting the lenient 'conceivable benefit' test and establishing a higher burden of proof for defendants claiming a constitutional violation from the deportation of alien witnesses. It establishes a new precedent that balances the government's significant interest in enforcing immigration policy against a defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The ruling significantly curtails the ability of defendants in immigration-related cases to have indictments dismissed, as they now face the difficult task of demonstrating the materiality of testimony from witnesses they were never able to interview.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal