Court Opinion

ID: 9860887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:35:17.392075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:50.219816
License: Public Domain

PASHMAN, J.,
dissenting.
The issue in this case is whether the representation of co-defendants by public defenders from the same office denies them effective assistance of counsel. In State v. Land, 73 N.J. 24 (1977), this Court held that representation of co-defendants by a single attorney was unconstitutional absent a valid waiver. Justice Schreiber, writing for a unanimous court, set forth our *183strong policy of avoiding even the possibility of conflicts of interest in the representation of co-defendants. In State v. Bellucci, 81 N.J. 531 (1980), the Court held that representation of co-defendants by two members of the same private law firm created a similar potential for conflict and therefore constituted a denial of effective assistance of counsel. Absent a knowing waiver, such joint representation is therefore prohibited. The majority here refuses to apply the same rule to public defenders from the same office. They believe that the salutary safeguards they have implemented to prevent actual conflicts, ante at 173-175, provide sufficient protection. In my view, extension of the Bellucei rule to public defenders is necessary to eliminate the danger of conflicts of interest. I therefore dissent.
I agree with the majority that public interest attorneys and private attorneys should not automatically be treated the same way. Certain rules appropriate to one may be unnecessary or counterproductive when applied to the other. See, e.g., In re Education Law Center, Inc., 86 N.J. 124 (1981) (allowing nonprofit corporation with non-lawyer directors to practice law). The proper approach is to inquire into the appropriateness of applying the particular rule in question to public interest practice. Unlike the majority, I believe that anything short of applying the Bellucei rule to public defenders will not “protect adequately the ‘fundamental and absolute’ right to effective assistance of counsel.” State v. Bellucei, 81 N.J. at 543 (citation omitted).
The majority’s approach centers around a hearing early in the proceedings to determine whether there is any potential for conflict. See R. 3:8-2. If so, joint representation will be prohibited. If defense counsel perceives a potential conflict, the trial court is urged, though not required, to defer to that judgment. There are two problems with that solution. First, it leaves open the danger that a conflict will be discovered later in the proceedings, perhaps during the trial. Second, it does nothing to address the fear some defendants may have of revealing confidences to an attorney associated with the attorney for their *184co-defendants. The Bellucci rule would fully eliminate both problems.
Conflicts of interest will not always be evident at the time of the pre-trial hearing. As Justice Schreiber pointed out in State v. Land, 73 N.J. at 32, “[although not apparent, the conflict may surface during the course of the trial.” The facts of this case underscore that possibility. At the last minute, the State discovered and introduced a witness whose testimony was damaging to only one of the co-defendants. Although I do not dispute the majority’s finding that there was no actual prejudice here, it is easy to see how on slightly different facts the introduction of such a witness could create a conflict.
If a conflict is discovered during or immediately before trial, the defense and the court are faced with two unacceptable alternatives. The first possibility is that they may choose to tolerate the conflict rather than change attorneys. Defense counsel who has put considerable work into a case may hesitate to see that work go to waste and burden an equally busy neighboring public defender office with a duplication of effort. A defendant who has confided in and learned to trust his attorney may view the conflict of interest as the lesser evil when faced with the prospect of a new attorney. Finally, especially during trial, the trial court may view a defense motion for a change in attorneys as an attempt to stall or disrupt the trial. Its inclination may therefore be to deny the motion. In each case, the result will be ineffective assistance of counsel.
The alternative is to change attorneys in midstream. This is equally unacceptable. At best, such a change would require substantial time and resources for the new attorney to familiarize herself with the case. The trial would have to be delayed during this time or, if the trial had already begun, a new trial might be necessary. Often, the result may be even worse. A new attorney may be appointed and required to proceed immediately with the case, without the opportunity to do much investí*185gation, study the files of the prior attorney, or even talk with her client.
This solution will also have an adverse impact on the defendant’s perception of the criminal justice system. He will be forced to change attorneys in the middle of his case. Any confidence he has gained in his attorney, any feeling that he can trust and confide in her, will be dissipated. He will be forced to reveal difficult and personal facts about himself to still another stranger. People close to the criminal justice system are well aware that one prevalent complaint of criminal defendants is that they have been shunted from attorney to attorney during the course of their case. Without an opportunity to develop any sort of rapport with their attorneys, defendants often feel that they have not had an adequate opportunity to present a defense. Often, they will be right. Such shuffling is certainly inconsistent with the type of individualized attention and zealous advocacy that our criminal justice system purports to provide defendants. That the majority’s rule will unavoidably increase the shuffling of appointed defense attorneys is alone sufficient reason to reject it.
The second difficulty with the majority’s rule concerns client confidences. I assume that hardly ever would a public defender reveal her client’s confidences to another public defender in the same office representing a co-defendant. Even so, the defendant’s perception that his attorney will share information with an associate can damage the attorney-client relationship almost as much as the actual revelation of such information. We have said that “the right to counsel ‘would be meaningless if the defendant were not able to communicate freely and fully with the attorney.’ ” State v. Land, 73 N.J. at 30, quoting M. Freedman, Lawyers’ Ethics In An Adversary System 8 (1975). Such open communication will not occur if the defendant believes that his secrets will not be safe, whether or not that belief is justified.
*186The facts of State v. Rogers, 90 N.J. 187 (1982), decided today, illustrate the problem. The defendant there believed that anything he said to his attorney would be disclosed to the attorney for his co-defendant. He therefore refused to discuss his case with his attorney. The trial court determined that his fears about confidentiality were unfounded and therefore denied his motion for a new trial. However, the question is not whether his fears were justified. Whether or not they were justified, they were real. Given those fears, defendant could not communicate with his attorney. Since he was not given an attorney he felt he could trust, he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
The right to independent counsel is fundamental. As we explained in Bellucci, supra:
The harm in dual representation is caused by the restraints placed on an attorney’s advocacy and independent judgment. It is one of divided loyalties. At its extreme, such conflict may prevent counsel from attempting to exonerate one client when doing so would require him to demonstrate that another client is guilty. [81 N.J. at 543]
The majority offers no reason why co-defendants need be represented by public defenders from the same office despite the potential for conflict. Any savings in resources from the majority’s rule likely will be outweighed by the added expense and duplication of effort that will result from changing attorneys in midstream as conflicts arise. In any event, convenience and reduction of administrative costs cannot justify deprivation of the effective assistance of counsel.1 In some situations, the defendants may be better served by being represented by associated public defenders. In those cases, they are free to waive their constitutional right to independent counsel. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); State v. Land, 73 N.J. at 32.
*187My disagreement with the majority is not at the level of principle. We all agree that the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel deserves careful protection. The majority believes that their rule will adequately protect that right. I disagree. In my view, application of the Bellucci rule to public defenders from the same office is necessary to assure defendants their fundamental right to independent counsel.
HANDLER, J., concurring in the result.
For affirmance —Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER, POLLOCK and O’HERN—6.
Dissenting—Justice PASHMAN—1.

I understand that the financial costs of extending the Bellucci rule are not negligible. For that reason, whenever possible, co-defendants should be represented by public defenders from neighboring municipalities rather than by pool counsel. In this way, there will be no additional fees.