In Wilkins v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a defendant's right to due process is violated when they are sentenced based on information that they had no opportunity to deny or explain. The case involved a man named Robert Lee Wilkins who was convicted of bank robbery and given an unusually harsh sentence because his pre-sentence report included allegations of other crimes for which he had never been charged or convicted. The court ruled 8-1 in favor of the government, holding that it did not violate due process for a judge to consider such allegations during sentencing as long as they have some minimal level of reliability. This decision affirmed judges' broad discretion in sentencing and held that defendants do not have the right to confront witnesses or cross-examine evidence at their sentencing hearings.

In the dissenting opinion for Wilkins v. United States, Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an unauthorized wiretap was fundamentally flawed. He contended that such evidence should be excluded from trial as it violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on Lopez v. United States in justifying their ruling, stating that this case did not establish a precedent for admitting illegally obtained evidence but rather addressed whether or not consent had been given for surveillance activities. In his view, allowing such evidence would undermine citizens' privacy rights and encourage law enforcement agencies to engage in illegal conduct with impunity.