Selser, In re
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | VANDERBILT; HEHER |
| Citation | Selser, In re, 105 A.2d 395, 15 N.J. 393 (N.J. 1954) |
| Decision Date | 17 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. A--81,A--81 |
| Parties | In re SELSER et al. |
David H. Harris. Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant (Theodore D. Parsons, Atty. Gen., Albert M. Ash, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel).
Albert S. Gross, Hackensack, for respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
by racketeers. In this connection on February 24, 1953 the grand jury subpoenaed Mr. John E. Selser, a member of the Bergen County bar, to appear before it and testify. He testified that one of his clients was Guarino Moretti, also known as Willie Moore, but more commonly referred to as Willie Moretti, a notorious racketeer who was murdered on October 4, 1951 in a crime which still remains unsolved. Moretti was one of the star witnesses before the Senate Crime Committee, Kefauver, Crime in America (1951), pp. 271--275. As early as 1931 Willie Moretti had been a client of Mr. Selser, who represented him on many occasions, most notably when he was indicted on the charge of murder. Mr. Selser testified that beginning in 1931 he represented a group of racketeers:
From 1944 to 1949 Mr. Selser was first assistant prosecutor of Bergen County. On more than one occasion he was approached by the Moretti brothers, who offered him $1,000 a month to refrain from investigating their criminal activities in the county:
'Q. Well, now, do you recall your testimony before the Grand Jury, where you were Assistant Prosecutor, or shortly after you had been appointed Prosecutor, when you were contacted with reference to a payoff? A. I was offered money.
'Q. And you were offered $1,000 a month as First Assistant Prosecutor? A. That's absolutely so * * * That was, I think, even before I was sworn in as First Assistant Prosecutor, and I went on in my testimony and said I reported this to Walter Winne (then county prosecutor of Bergen County).
'Q. Just so that the jury would have the background on this, could you tell us how that came about, that you were offered this money? A. Well, now I am thinking about it. I think it was Solly. I think you are right. Solly was the first one to come to see me. Solly came into my office and told me--this was at 210 Main Street, my own private office--told me they wanted to congratulate me for coming into office as First Assistant Prosecutor. He said: 'Of course you know that you are entitled to some money.' I said, 'Why, Solly?' He said, I said,
'Q. Were you ever approached again during the time you were Assistant Prosecutor by anyone? A. Yes.
'Q. Can you tell us who approached you the second time? A. Willie.
'Q. Willie again? A. You were right a moment ago. It was Solly first and Willie came to me after I was sworn in. He said to me, I said, and he very clearly indicated to me that there was an accumulation of money if I wanted it. * * * He then asked me whether or not I would like to be United States Attorney? I said, 'Don't be foolish. You couldn't make me a United States Attorney. Let's not be funny about it, Willie.''
The attitude of the Morettis toward the defendant, as narrated by him, is illuminating. In addition, there is no doubt that while serving as assistant prosecutor the defendant was aware that money was being paid to officials for the protection of gambling interests:
In 1949 Mr. Selser left the prosecutor's office and resumed the private practice of law. Whether he immediately became attorney for the Morettis is not disclosed. In any event, at 2 a.m. on October 31, 1950 after a complaint had been filed against Joseph Doto (alias Joseph Adonis), James P. Lynch, Arthur Longano, Anthony Guarini, and Salvatore Moretti charging them with conspiracy to keep and maintain a place to which persons might resort for the purpose of gambling and a warrant had been issued against them, Mr. Selser received a telephone call from Willie Moretti retaining him as attorney in the matter. All of them except Anthony Guarini, who was at the time in prison, were produced by Selser, were arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and bail was fixed. Subsequently all five were indicted by the Bergen County Grand Jury. They entered pleas of not guilty but on May 21, 1951 they retracted these pleas and entered pleas of Non vult, and on May 28, 1951 were sentenced to prison. Willie Moretti was not charged, arrested or indicted in Bergen County until November 7, 1952, more than two years later, when along with Harold John Adonis, Andrew Adonis and others, he was indicted for conspiracy to obstruct the due administration of the laws of the State. By that time Moretti had been dead more than a year. We refrain from comment here on the practice of indicting dead men.
Between October 31, 1950 and the date of Moretti's death less than a year later, the defendant testified he had some 200 conferences with Moretti. Although Moretti at no time was under indictment, he had been summoned to appear as a witness before the Kefauver Committee. In the course of these conversations the defendant learned of many instances in which Moretti and his associates had paid protection money to public officials and others in prominent positions at the state and county level:
* * *
'
Moretti also divulged to him the names of persons who had received political contributions from the 'racketeer elements.' He likewise discussed with the defendant a visit which he had paid, also at 2 a.m., to the home of Mr. John J. Dickerson, then chairman of the Republican State Committee and a member of the Board of Chosen Freeholders of Bergen County, 13 days after he had retained the defendant to represent him and his associates. Concerning this visit Mr. Dickerson testified before the grand jury:
Again the attitude of Moretti is significant.
At the grand jury proceedings on February 24, 1953, many questions were propounded to the defendant. Four of them he refused to answer on the ground that they involved privileged communications between attorney and client, and therefore he was under a duty to his client, the late Willie Moretti, to decline to answer them:
On being directed by the foreman of the grand jury to answer each question Mr. Selser again refused.
Thereupon the Attorney-General filed a petition in the Superior Court and obtained an order to show cause why the defendant should not be directed to answer these questions. Affidavits were filed by both parties, and on the return day the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
United Jersey Bank v. Wolosoff
...the fundamental theory of our judicial system that the fullest disclosure of the facts will best lead to the truth." In re Selser, 15 N.J. 393, 405, 105 A.2d 395 (1954). The underlying theories are patently antithetical. In seeking to accommodate these competing policies, we recognize that ......
-
Dixon v. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
...(5th Cir.1981), cert. den. sub nom. Dinnan v. Blaubergs, 457 U.S. 1106, 102 S.Ct. 2904, 73 L.Ed.2d 1314 (1982); see In re Selser, 15 N.J. 393, 405, 105 A.2d 395 (1954) ("Since it results in the exclusion of evidence, the doctrine of privileged communication runs counter to the fundamental t......
-
State v. Sugar
...an evidentiary privilege surrounds those confidences. Only the client may waive that protection. See, e. g., In re Selser, 15 N.J. 393, 404, 105 A.2d 395 (1954); Evid.R. 26(b); see also Esposito v. United States, 436 F.2d 603, 606 (9th Cir. 1970); Republic Gear Co. v. Borg-Warner Corp. , 38......
-
Farber, Matter of
...established in this jurisdiction that statutory privileges obstruct truth and ought to be construed restrictively, In re Selser, 15 N.J. 393, 405-407, 105 A.2d 395 (1954); also State v. Jamison, 64 N.J. 363, 375, 316 A.2d 439 (1974); In re Richardson, 31 N.J. 391, 396-397, 157 A.2d 695 (196......