Does characterizing attorney client communications about bond strategy and hearing preparation as merely 'procedural scheduling matters' defeat Sixth Amendment protections, particularly when state actors use information from those communications to obtain additional evidence and when multiple state actors intentionally intrude despite explicit assertions of privilege?

The Georgia Supreme Court held that attorney-client communications about bond strategy and hearing preparation were merely “procedural scheduling matters ” and unprotected. Does characterizing attorney client communications about bond strategy and hearing preparation as merely "procedural scheduling matters" defeat Sixth Amendment protections, particularly when state actors use information from those communications to obtain additional evidence and when multiple state actors intentionally intrude despite explicit assertions of privilege? 11 RULE 14(B) STATEMENT The following proceedings are directly related to this case within the meaning of Rule 14.1 (b)(iii): State v. Bums, No. 18-9-2853 (Ga. Super. Ct., Cobb Cnty.) (final order following jury verdict entered September 2, 2021; order amended motion for new trial on remand denied August 31, 2022). Bums v. State, A22A0566 (Ga.) ( remanded May 26, 2022)(unpublished) Bums v. State, No. A23A0577 (Ga.) (opinion issued June 20, 2023; reconsideration denied July 6, 2023). Bums v. State, No. S23G1192 (Ga.) (certiorari granted February 6, 2024; Decided October 15, 2024).