United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
1982 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case that determined 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.[1]
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal | |
---|---|
Argued April 20, 1982 Decided July 2, 1982 | |
Full case name | United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal |
Citations | 458 U.S. 858 (more) 102 S. Ct. 3440; 73 L. Ed. 2d 1193; 1982 U.S. LEXIS 159; 50 U.S.L.W. 5108 |
Case history | |
Prior | 647 F.2d 72 (9th Cir. 1981); cert. granted, 454 U.S. 963 (1981). |
Holding | |
Respondent cannot establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a criminal defendant the right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses "in his favor," merely by showing that deportation of the aliens deprived him of their testimony, nor can he establish a Fifth Amendment violation for lack of due process, as an absence of fairness is not made out by the Government's deportation of the witnesses here unless there is some explanation of how their testimony would have been favorable and material. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, White, Powell, Stevens |
Concurrence | Blackmun |
Concurrence | O'Connor |
Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. V, VI |
The Supreme Court held 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.