Posted: September 1st, 2023

ln the case of Kuhlmann v. Wilson, an informer strategically placed in a jail cell obtained incriminating information from a suspect

ln the case of Kuhlmann v. Wilson, an informer strategically placed in a jail cell obtained incriminating information from a suspect. The informer had instructions not to start a conversation with the suspect. The incriminating information was obtainable only by listening. lndeed, an analysis of the law suggests that a planted informer by the police can obtain admissible evidence from suspected if they did not elicit for such information. The information is inadmissible if the suspect can present proof of coercive steps by the informer. The final decision by the courts held that the evidence obtained from the suspect was admissible because the informer did not probe the suspect. The defendant in the case was a suspect in a robbery and murder case. ln his official recorded statement, Wilson denied committing the murder and he claimed that he was only an eyewitness in the incident. The police went ahead and placed Wilson in the same cell as an informant (Sutton, 2016).
The spy had instructions not to ask any question to Wilson. The informer followed the instruction and only focused on hearing what Wilson was saying. ln the discussions between the informer and the suspect, the latter admitted his involvement in the robbery and the murder. The court denied any motions to suppress then statements by the informer and Wilson received a conviction for the charges. ln the year 1973, Wilson sought a federal habeas corpus relief. ln his assertions, he claimed that the obtaining of statements from him by the informer used methods that contravened his sixth amendment rights (Sutton, 2016). The District Court denied those pleas and the decision was the same in the court of appeal. The 1980 decisions in States v. Henry and in Massiah v. United States informed the rulings to deny the appeal by Wilson. The precedent from the cases relied heavily on the “deliberately elicited test” in the suppression of statements received from a paid informant in prison.
ln 1982, the respondent filed another habeas corpus appeal, this time in a federal district court. Again, he asserted a violation of his sixth amendment rights.
The district courts denied relief but the appeals court agreed.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/argument-preview-state-court-adjudications-must-federal-habeas-courts-defer/ 40%
The district courts denied relief but the appeals court agreed. The court of appeal made a conclusion that justice required the consideration of habeas corpus. Additionally, it held that the determination of a violation of the sixth amendment right as an important aspect of the case. ln the determination of the Supreme Court, it acknowledged that the informer was an agent of the state. However, there was no violation of the rights of the suspect (Sutton, 2016).
The informer did not elicit the incriminating statements from the suspect.
4writers.net order ID: ********** 67%
https://quizlet.com/63985121/miranda-flash-cards/ 67%
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-politicalscience/chapter/the-rights-of-the-accused/ 67%
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/custodial-interrogation 33%
The informer did not elicit the incriminating statements from the suspect.
The sixth amendment of the United States constitution looks into the interrogation of suspects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause 50%
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-politicalscience/chapter/the-rights-of-the-accused/ 50%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_court_(United_States) 33%
The sixth amendment of the United States constitution looks into the interrogation of suspects. The Supreme Court did not find any form of interrogation in the interaction of the informer and the suspect.
Therefore, the sixth amendment was not functional in the case.
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=jcl 33%
Therefore, the sixth amendment was not functional in the case.
Main Laws Violated in the Case Kuhlmann v. Wilson was a criminal case. The suspect had a charge of robbery and murder. The case filed by the investigators revealed a trail of events by Wilson that led to the robbery of a garage and the killing of one of its attendants (Sutton, 2016). The charge falls under the doctrine of the rule of felony murder. The ruled makes the crime of murder broader. The doctrine considers that the murder occurs in the commission of another crime.
The concept of felony murder originates from transferred intent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule 50%
The concept of felony murder originates from transferred intent. The primary intention of the suspect was to steal from the garage. However, the suspect ends up killing a person in the act of robbery. Transferred intent still makes the case a deliberate murder charge. ln the felony murder charge, the first underlying offense should have presented a foreseeable danger to life scenario to the suspect.
ln the case, Wilson must have foreseen that the mission to rob the garage could have made him kill a person. Additionally, the felony murder charge informs that the link between both even should not be too remote. An analysis of the case reveals that it fulfilled both prerequisites. First, Wilson should have known that a person might try to stop him from robbing the garage. Therefore, he might have thought about how to react in such a situation. Secondly, the point of robbery and the murder are not distant. Both events definitely had a correlation. Depending on the jurisdiction question, there are different views on the person that caused the murder. Jurisdictions that lean towards agency theory only punish deaths caused by the suspects who are agents. On the other hand, a jurisdiction that believes in approximate cause punishes all forms of death. The proximate cause test punishes any individual who might have caused death.
ln the case study, Wilson fulfilled both elements.
https://www.gwumc.edu/edu/obgyn/genetics/casestudies/casestudy33.htm 33%
ln the case study, Wilson fulfilled both elements. Therefore, the felony murder charge was unavoidable. Possible Penalties of Associated with the Laws Prescribed Most states in the United States of America recognize the felony murder rule. The federal government also recognizes the felony murder rule. The crime is first-degree murder in most states. The most probable sentence from the crime is several years to life in prison. ln other states, felony murder is a capital offense. Therefore, the most probable form of punishment is the death penalty. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court has a certain restriction for jurisdictions that seek to use the death penalty for felony murder. ln the case study, Enmund v. Florida, the United States Supreme Court stated that the death penalty should not apply to an individual who only played a minor role in a felony. For instance, in a robbery involving many people, a murder might have occurred.
The intervention by the Supreme Courts protects participants who did not participate directly in the murder. ln Tison v. Arizona, the Supreme Court agreed that the death penalty was appropriate for a defendant involved directly in a murder. ln the case, the judge said that the defendant acted recklessly with indifference to the life of fellow humans.
The State and the Federal Court System ln Kuhlmann v.
https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/federal-courts 67%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_court_(United_States) 67%
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/federal-state-court-relations 33%
The State and the Federal Court System ln Kuhlmann v. Wilson, the suspect appeared in both the state and federal courts. The federal court system weighed in on the matter to reaffirm the finding in most of the state courts. Most of the laws that affect citizens in the United States are under state jurisdiction.
Therefore, the states handle most of the disputes.
https://judiciallearningcenter.org/state-courts-vs-federal-courts/ 33%
Therefore, the states handle most of the disputes. The federal courts have the duty of defending the most basic rights of the citizenry. Some of the rights include equal protection under the law and the freedom of speech. The framers of the constitution of the United States wanted to limit the control of the federal structures. However, the federal courts still serve an imperative role in the justice system (Rose, & Bowling, 2015). The main idea behind federalism anticipates the division of power from the main government to the smaller regional governments. Therefore, the dual court system transmits judicial powers to the state and regional courts.
However, the federal courts still maintain oversight and supervision over the decisions made in the state jurisdictions. The state courts have general jurisdictions. The courts handle all disputes except some designated only for the federal courts. The state courts interpret the law the same way as the federal courts (Rose, & Bowling, 2015). The constitution empowers each state to make and amend its own laws. To that extent, the state is able to retain power and it prevents over-empowerment of the federal government. Close to 90% of the cases in the United States, end up in the state courts. An example of the cases is a crime. The specific laws of the states outline crimes. Therefore, crimes are a violation of the state laws (Rose, & Bowling, 2015). Criminal activities classified under crimes include assault, robbery, murder, and drug-related offenses. The courts also handle controversies that emanate from the constitution of the state and other laws.
The courts determine civil cases such as real estate disputes, contract disputes, and personal injury cases.
https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/matthewseastmoore.com/practice-areas/trial-litigation/ 30%
The courts determine civil cases such as real estate disputes, contract disputes, and personal injury cases. The jurisdiction extends to the family, inheritance, probate and custody offense. Traffic and juvenile cases also appear in the state courts.
On the other hand, the federal court only hears cases under special circumstances.
http://adacourse.org/courtconcepts/juris.html 40%
On the other hand, the federal court only hears cases under special circumstances. The status gives the courts limited jurisdiction. Essentially, the federal courts are only open to two types of cases (Clair, & Winter, 2016). First, they prioritize matters concerning federal questions. Such cases involve the constitution of the country or other federal laws. Some of the common cases include crimes that violate federal laws. Some of the examples of federal crimes are drug cases, bank robberies, kidnappings, and guns related charges.
Other federal questions are civil cases that rely on federal laws.
https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/jurisdiction-federal-question 40%
Other federal questions are civil cases that rely on federal laws. Civil cases under federal laws include those that prohibit discrimination in places of employment. Others include the laws that regulate competition and trading (Rose, & Bowling, 2015).
The federal courts also probe cases involving interstate crimes. Cases that arise from the controversies in the United States constitution also end up in the federal courts. All case involving foreigner also appear in the courts. Controversies between two state jurisdictions are also a federal question. Diversity citizenship cases involve parties that are not from the same state or countries. Such matter appears before a federal judge. However, to limit the number of cases, the law states that the claim in such cases must be worth at least $75, 000. lf the claim is less than $75,000, the matters, have to settle for determination at the State level.
The Outcome of the Case The case Kuhlmann v. Wilson mainly involved the controversy about the informer. However, the case study covers fundamental facts about the state and federal jurisdictions in the United States. The case appeared both in the Federal and State courts. The former heard the matter because it involved the fundamental rights of the defendant. However, the Supreme Court determined that the determination of the case by the lower courts was judicious. The act by the informer did not violate the rights of Wilson. Therefore, the evidence was admissible in the courts. Wilson served the sentence in a state correctional facility.

Check Price Discount

Study Notes, Research Topics & Assignment Examples: Why is it important to have a taxonomy or classification of types of collection and how does »BSBLDR511 Develop and Use Emotional Intelligence