No. 24-7185

Wayne Johnson v. First District Appellate Project, et al.

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2025-05-12
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: attorney-fiduciary-duty confidential-communications criminal-defendant fourteenth-amendment public-defender sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2025-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether an attorney appointed at public expense has a fiduciary duty to a criminal defendant to not disclose confidential communications in an environment accessible to opposing counsel, and whether such disclosure violates the defendant's constitutional rights

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

I. Whether an attorney appointed at public expense has a fiduciary duty to a criminal defendant to not disclose confidential communications in an environment that is accessible and made available to the opposing counsel. II. Whether an attorney who eviscerates the fiduciary duty to his client by disclosing confidential communications has violated his client ’s Sixth and / or Fourteenth Amendment rights and exposed himself to civil damages. i

Docket Entries

2025-10-06
Petition DENIED.
2025-07-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-07-10
Waiver of right of respondent Mark Duane Johnson, William J. Capriola, James Bradely O'Connell and the First District Appellate Project to respond filed.
2025-06-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 11, 2025.
2025-06-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 11, 2025 to July 11, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-04-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 11, 2025)

Attorneys

Mark Duane Johnson, William J. Capriola, James Bradely O'Connell and the First District Appellate Project
Mark P. EdsonBennett, Gelini & Gelini, Respondent
Wayne Johnson
Wayne Jerome Johnson — Petitioner