## Facts

- Ricardo Valenzuela-Bernal was stopped while driving a car carrying three undocumented alien passengers.
- Federal authorities arrested the occupants and interviewed the passengers.
- The government retained one passenger (Romero-Morales) as a witness but deported the other two after determining in good faith that they had no evidence material to the prosecution.
- Valenzuela-Bernal was indicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2) for knowingly transporting an undocumented alien who had entered the United States within three years of the transportation.
- Before trial, Valenzuela-Bernal moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming the deportations denied him the chance to interview the two deported eyewitnesses and violated the Fifth Amendment (due process) and Sixth Amendment (compulsory process).
- He could not identify what exculpatory or defense-favorable evidence the deported witnesses would have provided.
- The district court denied dismissal and, after a bench trial, convicted him; the Ninth Circuit reversed using a “conceivable benefit” standard tied to eyewitness status.

## Issues

1. Whether deporting alien eyewitnesses before the defense can interview them violates the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process absent a specific showing that the testimony would be favorable.
2. Whether such deportation violates Fifth Amendment due process when the defendant cannot explain how the lost testimony would have been favorable and material.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and reinstated the conviction.
- The Court held that deportation of potential witnesses does not, by itself, establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment or Fifth Amendment.
- A defendant must make at least a plausible showing that the deported witnesses’ testimony would have been both material and favorable to the defense.
- The Ninth Circuit’s rule—treating deportation of an eyewitness as constitutionally problematic without requiring any showing of favorable, material testimony—was rejected as too speculative.
- On the record, Valenzuela-Bernal failed to make a plausible, non-speculative showing that the deported witnesses could provide material, favorable evidence not merely cumulative of other evidence.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment guarantees compulsory process for obtaining witnesses “in [the defendant’s] favor”; a claimed deprivation requires a showing that the missing testimony would have been favorable and material.
- A defendant challenging the government’s deportation of alien witnesses must make a plausible showing that the testimony would have been (1) material and (2) favorable, not merely cumulative.
- Because deportation can limit the defense’s ability to learn the content of the missing testimony, the required showing may be less specific than in other contexts, but materiality cannot be dispensed with entirely.
- The government may deport illegal-alien witnesses consistent with the Constitution when it makes a good-faith determination that they possess no evidence favorable to the defendant, considering immigration enforcement and the burdens of detention.

## Conclusion

The Court held that deportation of alien witnesses does not violate due process or compulsory process unless the defendant plausibly shows the lost testimony would have been both material and favorable; mere eyewitness status and speculation are insufficient.


United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982)