## Facts

- Cladie B. Wilson and Louis Washington were indicted in Cook County, Illinois for the unlawful sale of heroin arising from an alleged September 8, 1958 transaction.
- The alleged sale occurred in the Chicago apartment of Ruth Killingsworth, a paid federal narcotics informer.
- Present during the events were Officer Inez Anderson (Chicago police detailed to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics), Killingsworth, and the two defendants.
- At trial, only Anderson and Wilson testified; Killingsworth did not.
- It was undisputed that Wilson received $150 or $160 in the apartment and later returned with a package containing heroin.
- Anderson testified she gave Wilson money after Killingsworth urged her to do so, and that Wilson later delivered the heroin.
- Wilson claimed Killingsworth pressured and directed her involvement and asserted an entrapment defense; she contended the informer’s testimony would support that defense.
- Before trial, Wilson requested that the prosecution produce the informer or provide information enabling the defense to locate her; the informer was not produced.
- A federal agent testified that he provided Killingsworth money and put her on a train out of Illinois, rendering her unavailable.
- The trial court deferred ruling on Wilson’s request until after hearing evidence, then denied the request as not beneficial and convicted both defendants in a bench trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the failure to make an active participating informer available after a timely, specific defense request deprived Wilson of a fair trial where entrapment was asserted.
2. Whether the trial court could deny production based on its own prediction that the informer’s testimony would not aid the defense.
3. Whether the convictions, including Washington’s conviction and habitual criminal sentence, could stand given the trial’s fairness defect.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the convictions of Wilson and Washington and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that, on this record, the State’s failure to make the informer available after an appropriate request denied Wilson a fair trial.
- The court rejected the trial court’s speculative determination that the informer’s testimony would not help the defense.
- Because the same incident and evidentiary setting underlay both convictions, the error required reversal as to both defendants.

## Legal Principles

- When an informer is an active participant in the charged offense and the defense makes a timely, specific request for the informer’s presence or whereabouts, the prosecution’s ability to withhold access is limited.
- A defendant asserting entrapment is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to obtain testimony from a participating informer who may have material information on inducement and predisposition.
- A court may not deny access to a participating informer based solely on conjecture that the informer’s testimony would be unhelpful, particularly where government action has made the witness unavailable.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the prosecution’s failure to make a participating informer available—after a timely defense request and amid evidence the informer was sent out of state—prevented a fair adjudication of the entrapment claim and tainted the convictions arising from the same transaction.


People v. Wilson, 182 N.E.2d 203 (Ill. 1962)