Unpublished Disposition, 921 F.2d 279 (9th Cir. 1990)
Annotate this CaseSamuel DUBYAK, Petitioner-Appellant,v.Robert Glen BORG, Warden, et al, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 90-55630.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 18, 1990.* Decided Dec. 21, 1990.
Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, and SCHROEDER and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Samuel Dubyak, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. Dubyak contends that the compelled testimony of his former civil attorney constituted government interference with the attorney client privilege, in violation of the sixth amendment. We affirm.
The attorney-client privilege is an evidentiary issue which may be waived. See Clady v. City of Los Angeles, 770 F.2d 1421, 1433 (9th Cir. 1985). Dubyak waived the privilege when he disclosed to third persons the contents of the disputed document and the fact that he gave it to an attorney.1
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Circuit R. 36-3
Dubyak also contends that the compelled testimony of his former attorney interfered with the attorney client privilege, in violation of the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. The fifth amendment protects a person from being compelled to be a witness against himself. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 396-99 (1976) (emphasis added). Thus, Dubyak's claim that his former attorney's compelled testimony violated his right against self-incrimination is meritless
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
