by detective," taken as true, would amount to constitutional violation). The Supreme Court has also made clear that “the Sixth Amendment does not by its terms grant to a criminal defendant the right to secure the attendance and testimony of any and all witnesses,” but only “witnesses in his favor.” United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867, 102 S.Ct. 3440, 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1982) (emphasis in original). Consequently, even where there may have been governmental misconduct, a criminal defendant cannot establish a violation of his compulsory process right unless he “make[s] some plausible showing” of how the potential witness’s “testimony would have been both material and favorable to his defense.” Id.; see also Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 509 (9th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). To state a claim for violation of her fair
holding that the court lacks jurisdiction over sixth amendment claims because the sixth amendment is not moneymandating holding that materiality does not require a showing that the creditors were prejudiced by the false statement holding sixth amendment witness interference claim fails without showing of relevance and materiality holding that exclusion of testimony as collateral and of speculative relevance did not violate defendants sixth and fourteenth amendment rights holding that 18 usc  1014 has no materiality requirement because the statute does not so much as mention materiality