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?

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?