 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.