Pseudonyms such as "John Doe" are sometimes used in court cases, usually to protect the innocent.  The Ninth Circuit recently issued an opinion in a capital case in which it referred to the murderer as John Doe, supposedly to protect him from victimization within prison.

But anyone who wants to know the name of the perp can find out easily.  Here are the first two paragraphs of the opinion from March 31:

In 1984, a house in California was burglarized and a number of items were stolen. K.H. and M.H. resided there with M.H.'s young children, a live-in babysitter, L.R., and her daughter. Petitioner John Doe,¹ who was living at the time in a vacant house adjacent to the property, was arrested in connection with the burglary, but then released.

Soon after, while K.H. and M.H. were not at home, their house was burglarized again. L.R. was murdered, having been beaten, stabbed, and strangled. Her body was found supine on the bed in the master bedroom, with her hands bound behind her back. She was naked from the waist down, with her legs open, and a vibrator near her body. A number of items were stolen.

Go to Lexis, limit to California, and search for "babysitter & strangled & vibrator" and the California Supreme Court's opinion on direct appeal, with the perp's real name, pops up.  If you don't have Lexis or one of its competitors, the same can be done with Google Scholar case law.

Today the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc and reiterated its reasons for the "John Doe."

Will the U.S. Supreme Court take the case?  It's an uphill battle to get them to take a pre-AEDPA, fact-bound, ineffective assistance case, but it's not out of the question.  The opinion is written by the frequently reversed Judge Reinhardt, and that's always a plus.