State v. Bell
Supreme Court of New Jersey
1ConcurrenceHandler, J.
I concur in the result reached by the Court. I agree with the majority that “there is no presumed or per se rule of conflict of interest” regarding the representation of multiple defendants by staff attorneys at the same public defender’s office. Ante at 171.
The majority’s opinion has additional significance. In resolving the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in this case, the Court uses a balancing approach. It holds that a conflict of interest with resulting prejudice to defendants will be presumed only when “the circumstances demonstrate a potential conflict of interest and a…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Cuyler v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Wood v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- State v. MacOnSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1971
- People v. CrumpNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.