United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal

Last updated
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 20, 1982
Decided July 2, 1982
Full case nameUnited States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
Citations458 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
Prior647 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
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by Burger, White, Powell, Stevens
ConcurrenceBlackmun
ConcurrenceO'Connor
DissentBrennan, joined by Marshall
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V, VI

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]

Contents

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.

Background

History of the Compulsory Process Clause

When the Bill of Rights 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. [2] In order to receive a fair trial, the defendant has the right to present witnesses or evidence that would be beneficial to his 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 (C.C.D. Va. 1807). 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. [3]

It was not addressed again until the Supreme Court's decision in Washington v. Texas . In Washington, four key elements of a defendant's guarantee of compulsory process were established. [4] 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. [5]

The Clause was next examined by the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Mendez-Rodriguez (9th Cir. 1971). [6] There, the defendant was indicted for transporting seven illegal aliens in violation of Section 1324(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. [7] The Federal government detained three of the Mexicans and deported the remaining four, a decision made by the United 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. [6] 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. [5]

Immigration law

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.” [5]

Trial proceedings

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.” [7] 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. 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 his Sixth Amendment right to call witnesses in formation of his defense. However, his motion was rejected. [1]

Appeals

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.” [6] 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. [1] 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. [5]

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. [8]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. He stated,

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. [1]

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. [9] “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.” [5] 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.” [1] 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. [1]

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. [8] Ultimately, the judgment of the court favored the United States.

Blackmun's concurrence

Justice Blackmun concurred, stating, “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.” [1]

O'Connor's concurrence

Justice O’Connor also concurred, stating, “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.” [1]

Dissenting opinion

Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, wrote a dissenting opinion. He believed that the decision of the Court contradicted itself. [1]

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.” [1]

Subsequent developments

Although the Supreme Court was trying to attain a balance between the defendant's right to compulsory process and the government's interests in United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, currently “federal districts are not following procedural practices that will attain this balance.” [5]

Related Research Articles

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution 1791 amendment enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that prior testimonial statements of witnesses who have since become unavailable may not be admitted without cross-examination.

In the United States, the exclusionary rule is a legal rule, based on constitutional law, that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. The exclusionary rule may also, in some circumstances at least, be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings. Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government.

The Speedy Trial Act of 1974, establishes time limits for completing the various stages of a federal criminal prosecution.

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses criminal procedure and other aspects of the Constitution. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment applies to every level of the government, including the federal, state, and local levels, in regard to a US citizen or resident of the US. The Supreme Court furthered the protections of this amendment through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

United States criminal procedure derives from several sources of law: the baseline protections of the United States Constitution, federal and state statutes; federal and state rules of criminal procedure ; and state and federal case law. Criminal procedures are distinct from civil procedures in the US.

United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 (1992), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that “a[n]…offense and a conspiracy to commit that offense are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.” The Supreme Court rejected the Tenth Circuit's reversal of Felix's conviction, finding that the Court of Appeals read the holding in Grady v. Corbin (1990) too broadly.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test. While the court ruled that the then-common practice of submitting these reports without testimony was unconstitutional, it also held that so called "notice-and-demand" statutes are constitutional. A state would not violate the Constitution through a "notice-and-demand" statute by both putting the defendant on notice that the prosecution would submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the scientist and also giving the defendant sufficient time to raise an objection.

Smith Act

The Alien Registration Act, popularly known as the Smith Act, 76th United States Congress, 3d session, ch. 439, 54 Stat. 670, 18 U.S.C. § 2385 is a United States federal statute that was enacted on June 28, 1940. It set criminal penalties for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence, and required all non-citizen adult residents to register with the federal government.

The Compulsory Process Clause within the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution lets criminal case defendants attain witnesses in their favor by way of a court-ordered subpoena. The Clause is generally interpreted as letting defendants present their own case at trial, though several specific limitations have been placed by the Supreme Court of the United States since this rule began.

United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that a criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a lineup held after indictment.

United States constitutional criminal procedure United States constitutional criminal procedure

The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding the law of criminal procedure.

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on two issues of constitutional criminal procedure. Glasser was the first Supreme Court decision to hold that the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment required the reversal of a criminal defendant's conviction if his lawyer's representation of him was limited by a conflict of interest.

Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. Jackie Washington had attempted to call his co-defendant as a witness, but was blocked by Texas courts because state law prevented co-defendants from testifying for each other, under the theory that they would be likely to lie for each other on the stand.

Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that defense witnesses can be prevented from testifying under certain circumstances, even if that hurts the defense's case. Taylor was the first case to hold that there is no absolute bar to blocking the testimony of a surprise witness, even if that is an essential witness for the defendant, a limitation of the broad right to present a defense recognized in Washington v. Texas (1967).

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

United States v. United States Gypsum Co. was a patent–antitrust case in which the United States Supreme Court decided, first, in 1948, that a patent licensing program that fixed prices of many licensees and regimented an entire industry violated the antitrust laws, and then, decided in 1950, after a remand, that appropriate relief in such cases did not extend so far as to permit licensees enjoying a compulsory, reasonable–royalty license to challenge the validity of the licensed patents. The Court also ruled, in obiter dicta, that the United States had standing to challenge the validity of patents when a patentee relied on the patents to justify its fixing prices. It held in this case, however, that the defendants violated the antitrust laws irrespective of whether the patents were valid, which made the validity issue irrelevant.

Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the knowing use of false testimony by a prosecutor in a criminal case violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if the testimony affects only the credibility of the witness and does not directly relate to the innocence or guilt of the defendant.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ↑ "Bill of Rights".
  3. ↑ United States v. Burr , 25F. Cas.30 (C.C.D. Va.1807).
  4. ↑ Washington v. Texas , 388 U.S. 14 (1967).
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Bucher, Kathryn. "Beyond United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal: Can the Defendant's Right to Compulsory Process Survive in Prosecutions for Transporting Illegal Aliens".
  6. 1 2 3 United States v. Mendez-Rodriguez, 450F.2d1 (9th Cir.1971).
  7. 1 2 "Immigration and Nationality Act".
  8. 1 2 Healy, Megan A. "Compulsory Process and the War on Terror: A Proposed Framework" (PDF).
  9. ↑ "Oyez: United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal".
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.