377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964). Dr. Gibbs and Dr. Smith, however, examined Clifford at his own request and were not acting, directly or indirectly, for the government. Their examinations of Clifford and their subsequent testimony, therefore, could not violate Clifford’s fifth or sixth amendment rights. See Arizona v. Mauro, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 1934-35, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987); United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). Accordingly, no fifth or sixth amendment considerations could have barred production of the protocols to government counsel. Production of the protocols also would have presented no infringement of the privilege shielding the defense attorney’s work-product. See Nobles, 422 U.S. at 236-38, 95 S.Ct. at 2169-70 (<HOLDING>); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct.
holding the logic of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in antitrust cases does not warrant its extension to civil rights cases holding that the workproduct doctrine applies in criminal cases because its role in assuring the proper functioning of the criminal justice system is even more vital than its role in civil cases holding that jury trial in civil cases is not so fundamental to the american system of justice as to be required of state courts by due process holding that 60day time limit for notice of appeal in civil cases not 10day limit in criminal cases applies to  2255 proceedings holding iowa civil liberties union and lawyers lacked standing to maintain action to challenge a supervisory order of the court pertaining to the trial of criminal cases  only defendants in the criminal cases had standing