# United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal

> Supreme Court of the United States · July 2, 1982 · 458 U.S. 858

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9428946

## Case

- **Full name:** United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** July 2, 1982
- **Citations:** 458 U.S. 858; 50 U.S.L.W. 5108; 102 S. Ct. 3440; 73 L. Ed. 2d 1193; 1982 U.S. LEXIS 159
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blackmun
- **Judges:** Rehnquist, Burger, White, Powell, Stevens, Blackmun, O'Connor, Brennan, Marshall
- **Cited by:** 1,260 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9428946

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a defendant cannot establish a violation of the constitutional right to compulsory process merely by showing that he was deprived of certain testimony but must make some plausible showing of how that testimony would have been both material and favorable to his def…
- holding that, while a criminal defendant cannot be deprived of his right to call witnesses in his favor "arbitrarily,” the defendant “must at least make some plausible showing of how [the proposed witness'] testimony would have been both material and favorable to his defense”
- recognizing that Rule 17 supports the conclusion that a defendant must make “some plausible showing of how ... testimony would have been both material and favorable to his defense” before he can establish a violation of his constitutional right to compulsory process
- holding that a defendant may not, via compulsory process, "secure the attendance and testimony of any and all witnesses," but must first "at least make some plausible showing of how their testimony would have been both material and favorable to his defense"
- stating that disclosing evidence based on a defendant’s “ ‘conceivable benefit’ is not sufficient,” rather the court should determine whether there is “a reasonable likelihood that the [disclosure] could have affected the judgment of the trier of fact”

## Opinion text

Justice Blackmun,
concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the judgment of the Court essentially for the reasons set forth by Judge Roney, in writing for a panel of the former Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Avila-Dominguez, 610 F. 2d 1266, 1269-1270 , cert. denied sub norm. Perez v. United States, 449 U. S. 887 (1980). 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9428946. Public record. Not legal advice.