## Facts

- Joseph Allan Wilson was charged in New York with crimes arising from a 1970 robbery and murder and was arraigned, triggering his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
- After arraignment, police placed Wilson in a cell with Benny Lee, a prisoner who had previously agreed to act as an informant.
- A police officer instructed Lee to listen for information (including identities of confederates) but not to question Wilson about the crimes.
- Wilson made incriminating statements to Lee while confined together.
- The state trial court, after a suppression hearing, found Wilson’s statements were “spontaneous” and “unsolicited,” and that Lee did not question Wilson about the offenses.
- Wilson was convicted of common-law murder and felonious possession of a weapon; state appellate courts affirmed.
- Wilson pursued federal habeas relief, lost, and later filed a successive federal habeas petition after an intervening Supreme Court decision addressing jailhouse informants.

## Issues

1. Under what circumstances may a federal court consider a state prisoner’s successive habeas petition raising a claim previously rejected in a prior federal habeas proceeding.
2. Whether the Sixth Amendment bars admission of post-arraignment statements made to a jailhouse informant who was instructed only to listen and not to question, where the statements were found to be unsolicited.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded.
- The Court held that reconsideration of a claim on a successive habeas petition generally requires the petitioner to supplement the constitutional claim with a colorable showing of factual innocence.
- The Court concluded Wilson did not meet that standard because he presented no new exculpatory evidence and sought relitigation largely based on an intervening legal decision.
- A majority further concluded that admitting Wilson’s statements did not violate the Sixth Amendment because the State did not “deliberately elicit” the statements; the informant’s role was limited to passive listening.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court should not ordinarily revisit on successive habeas review a constitutional claim previously rejected unless the petitioner makes a colorable showing of factual innocence sufficient to satisfy the “ends of justice.”
- After the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, the State violates the Constitution if it knowingly circumvents counsel by using a state agent to “deliberately elicit” incriminating statements outside counsel’s presence.
- The Sixth Amendment is not violated when, after attachment, the State obtains incriminating statements through “luck or happenstance,” including when an informant merely listens and takes no steps designed to prompt admissions.
- Passive receipt of volunteered statements differs from conduct that encourages, prompts, or otherwise seeks to draw out incriminating remarks.

## Conclusion

The Court limited successive habeas reconsideration of previously rejected claims to cases involving a colorable showing of factual innocence and held that the Sixth Amendment does not bar admission of post-arraignment statements volunteered to a jailhouse informant who did no more than listen under instructions not to question the accused.


Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 (1986)