You are working as a federal law clerk in the federal court in Phoenix, Arizona. The case of Stewart v. Arizona has recently come on the docket. Stewart is currently sitting in prison in Arizona. He came to be there through the following facts:

In early 2014, a rash of seemingly related murders ravaged the area of Flagstaff, Arizona. Police soon announced that they were on the hunt for a serial killer. On March 14, 2014, Stewart retained the services of Careful and Cautious, LLP, a law firm in Flagstaff to help with his legal troubles. During the initial consultation, Stewart told James Careful the following:

Well, Mr. Careful, the truth is that I'm behind the six recent murders in the area. I'm really a good guy and I hate to kill people. But sometimes, I just can't help myself. I don't want to continue killing people but these voices in my head... they're just so logical and irresistible.

James Careful promptly called the local police and reported his conversation with Stewart. Stewart was arrested for capital murder. A later search of his house turned up the murder weapon in two of the cases and files on Stewart's computer that contained information on two more victims. Stewart was put on trial in the fall of 2014. At trial, Stewart was represented by a public defense attorney, and James Careful testified against him. Careful related the entire March 14 conversation to the jury. After a three week trial, Stewart was found guilty of six counts of capital murder and was sentenced to death. He summarily appealed his sentence. Two months ago, the Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal.

Stewart, through his new appointed attorneys (paid for by a non-profit anti-death penalty organization), has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court for the District of Arizona. Among other arguments, Stewart claims that his rights were violated by Arizona because information and testimony was used against him that related to his confidential discussions with his then attorney, James Careful. The state claims that the use of the confidential communication with his attorney was proper in this case.