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. 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. 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.” 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.” Dissenting opinion Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, wrote a dissenting opinion. He believed that the decision of the Court contradicted itself. 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.” 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.” References External links 1982 in United States case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court Compulsory Process Clause case law United States criminal due process case law