Can a defendant waive attorney-client privilege as to everything he said to his attorney?

Defendant complains that the trial court misled him into believing he would have to waive his attorney-client privilege as to everything he said to his attorney. Defendant argues the trial court erred in not explaining that the waiver was limited to issues raised in his motions and that any disclosures of privileged statements were subject to use immunity. As to use immunity, the court in Dennis explained: "As we have noted, on motion for a new trial the defendant bears the burden of establishing ineffectiveness of counsel and this burden cannot be met by a silent record; consequently the defendant will feel compelled to make disclosure of information. The law clearly favors such disclosure. Trial courts have the duty to ensure that defendants are accorded due process of law, and they are particularly well suited to rule on the adequacy of counsel in cases tried before them. (People v. Fosselman [(1983) 33 Cal.3d 572,] 582.) And justice will be expedited by presenting the issue of counsel's effectiveness to the trial court on motion for a new trial. (Ibid.) These factors compel the conclusion that defendant must be granted use immunity for disclosures he may make in support of a motion for a new

Page 13

trial on grounds of ineffectiveness of trial counsel." (People v. Dennis, supra, 177 Cal.App.3d at p. 876.)