Whether the government's seizure and use at trial of a pretrial detainee's notes reflecting his defense strategy for discussion with counsel violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel

QUESTIONS PRESENTED While Petitioner Irvin Johnson was in jail awaiting trial for murder, he reviewed the police affidavit from his arrest, taking notes on questions and evidentiary topics that he planned to discuss with his trial counsel. Before he could do so, guards seized his legal note and turned it over to the prosecutors—who used it at trial, framing it as a confession. Aside from this “confession,” the trial evidence was largely circumstantial. After asking to see the note during its deliberations, the jury entered a guilty verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the government’s use of Mr. Johnson’s legal note at trial did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because the note was not “on its face” an attorney-client communication, and no prejudice resulted from any work-product violation. The questions presented are: 1. Ifa pretrial detainee drafts notes reflecting his defense strategy for discussion with counsel, may the government seize those notes and use them at trial so long as they do not indicate on their face that they are privileged and the client does not currently have a specific meeting with counsel scheduled? 2. Is the government’s use of such protected materials at trial always or presumptively prejudicial?