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.

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.

[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.

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] 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.

[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.

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.

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.

[1] The government has a duty to make sure that justice is done so all other responsibilities “must yield before the rights to which an accused is constitutionally entitled.”[1] 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]