Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Kuhlmann v. Wilson

Supreme Court of the United States · 1986 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureHabeas CorpusSixth AmendmentRight to Counselsuccessive habeas petitions28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)ends of justicecolorable showing of factual innocence

Facts

After arraignment, respondent was placed in a jail cell with Benny Lee, an informant who had agreed with police to listen for information identifying respondent's confederates. Detective Cullen instructed Lee not to question respondent, but only to keep his ears open; the state trial court found Lee followed those instructions, asked no questions about the crime, and only listened to respondent's spontaneous, unsolicited statements. Lee did remark that respondent's original story did not sound good, and later respondent admitted to Lee that he and two others had planned and carried out the robbery and murder. Those statements were admitted at trial, and respondent later tried to relitigate the same Sixth Amendment claim in a second federal habeas petition.

Issue

First, when may a federal court entertain a successive habeas petition by a state prisoner that repeats a constitutional claim already rejected on a prior federal petition? Second, does the Sixth Amendment bar admission of statements made to a jailhouse informant who, under police instructions, merely listens and does not take action designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks?

Rule

For successive habeas petitions under § 2244(b), the ends of justice require federal courts to entertain a petition raising a previously rejected claim only where the prisoner supplements the constitutional claim with a colorable showing of factual innocence. For Sixth Amendment purposes, a defendant must show that police and their informant took some action beyond merely listening that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks; the State does not violate Massiah simply by obtaining statements through luck or happenstance or by having an informant report volunteered statements.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After his first federal habeas petition was denied on the merits, Devin Morales, a state prisoner in Ohio, files a second federal habeas petition raising the same Sixth Amendment claim. He argues that a later appellate decision makes his legal argument stronger, but he offers no new evidence suggesting he did not commit the offense.

Should the federal court entertain Devin's successive petition?

Explanation. The governing rule is that when a state prisoner files a successive federal habeas petition repeating a claim already rejected, the ends of justice require review only if the prisoner supplements the constitutional claim with a colorable showing of factual innocence. A stronger legal argument alone is not enough. The majority emphasized finality and limited successive review to rare cases tied to innocence.