Author Question: Explain both elements of the right to compulsory process. What will be an ideal ... (Read 31 times)

jc611 · **on:** Aug 17, 2018

Explain both elements of the right to compulsory process.

What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

Summarize two Supreme Court decisions that address compulsory process: one in favor of the defense and another against the defense.

What will be an ideal response?

sylvia · **Reply #1 on:** Aug 17, 2018

Answer to Question 1

The right to compulsory process was incorporated to the states in Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), in which the Supreme Court stated that compulsory process protects the right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance.

Answer to Question 2

In Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957), the prosecution refused to provide the defense with the identity of a police informant. The Court recognized that the government had a significant interest in concealing the identity of the informant, mainly to further its efforts in combating the trafficking of illicit drugs. But the Court also found that the defendant's right to confrontation was denied by the prosecution's refusal to release the witness's identity.

In United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982), the defendant was charged with transporting illegal narcotics. He was arrested along with three other individuals who were unlawfully in the United States. Immigration officials concluded that two of the three aliens were not needed for the prosecution, so it deported them. The defendant then argued that his right to compulsory process was violated by the deportation. Surprisingly, the Court held that the government's interest in deporting illegal aliens and minimizing overcrowding in detention facilities outweighed the defendant's interest in mounting an effective defense. The Court concluded that the defendant did not offer a valid reason why the two deported witnesses were necessary for his defense.