In Re Johnson

Opinion

BIRD, C. J.

— This is a companion case to

Barber

v.

Municipal Court, ante,

at page 742 [157 Cal.Rptr. 658, 598 P.2d 818], since the facts and substantive issues are the same. However, the true identity of the police officer who sat in on attorney-client conferences was not discovered until after petitioners had been convicted at a court trial of violating Penal Code sections 602, subdivisions (k) and (n), and 409.

1

Petitioners seek a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that they were denied their constitutional right to counsel due to the police’s intrusion on their confidential attorney-client conferences. An order to show cause

[771]

was issued by this court so that these claims could be considered in conjunction with

Barber.

Habeas corpus is an appropriate vehicle to present a claim of the violation of the right to counsel, even if the issue was not raised at trial. The writ may issue without. establishing affirmatively that there was prejudice.

(In re Smiley

(1967) 66 Cal.2d 606, 625-626 [58 Cal.Rptr. 579, 427 P.2d 179].)

It is undisputed here, as in

Barber,

that Officer Lee attended confidential conferences between petitioners and their counsel prior to trial. In

Barber,

this court held that the surreptitious invasion of confidential attorney-client meetings by an agent of the state denied an accused his right to counsel. The proper remedy for this denial of an accused’s right to privacy of communication with his counsel is the dismissal of the charges.