State v. Rizzo
| Decision Date | 03 December 1975 |
| Citation | 69 N.J. 28,350 A.2d 225 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Salvatore RIZZO and Felix Jaquindo, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Allen C. Marra, pro se.
R. Benjamin Cohen, Asst. Prosecutor, for plaintiff-respondent (Anthony J. Fusco, Harry Robinson, III, and Steven Rosenfeld, Asst. Prosecutors, of counsel, Joseph P. Lordi, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney).
The Appellate Division upheld the orders of the trial court relieving Allen C. Marra as counsel to Felix Jaquindo and Salvatore Rizzo in this cause. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons set forth in its majority opinion reported at 138 N.J.Super. 62, 350 A.2d 252 (1975), designated as State v. Jaquindo, et al., and for the following additional reason.
Mr. Marra was associated with Thomas P. Ford, Jr. in the practice of the law at the time each undertook to represent his respective clients who had been indicted on charges growing out of a lengthy investigation by the Essex County Prosecutor's Office of the activities of certain public officials of the City of Orange. In State v. Lucarello, 69 N.J. 31, 350 A.2d 226, also decided this day, we upheld the order relieving Mr. Ford as counsel for Quincy H. Lucarello in this cause because of conflict of interest due to his former position as an Assistant Prosecutor of Essex County and First Assistant Prosecutor of Essex County during the period between September 1959 and September of 1971. (The investigation by the prosecutor's office, heretofore referred to, began in 1965 and was still continuing when Mr. Ford left the office in 1971.) The facts establishing Mr. Ford's conflict of interest are detailed in the majority opinion of the Appellate Division reported at 135 N.J.Super. 347, 343 A.2d 465 (1975) and need not be repeated. Suffice it to note that a clear case of Mr. Ford's disqualification in this matter was made out.
Even if Mr. Marra had not occupied a conflicting position by virtue of his own employment as an Assistant Prosecutor of Essex County during the continuation of the same investigation, while much of the information relevant to the crimes charged herein was being gathered, his association in the practice of law with Mr. Ford undermines his position. Mr. Marra's representation of officials of the City of Orange on criminal charges growing out of the continuing investigation participated in by Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Green
...532, 322 P.2d 804 (1958); GAC Commercial Corp. v. Mahoney Typographers, Inc., 66 Mich.App. 186, 238 N.W.2d 575 (1975); State v. Rizzo, 69 N.J. 28, 350 A.2d 225 (1975); Auseon v. Reading Brass Co., 22 Mich.App. 505, 177 N.W.2d 662 (1970); Harmar Drive-In Theatre, Inc. v. Warner Bros. Picture......
-
Cleary v. District Court in and for Eighteenth Judicial Dist.
...refrain from providing legal services to that client. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. State, 129 Ariz. 67, 628 P.2d 950 (1981); State v. Rizzo, 69 N.J. 28, 350 A.2d 225 (1975); see also In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, 658 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir.1981), ......
-
Garber, Matter of
...bar it is necessary that the appearance of, as well as actual, wrongdoing be avoided." In re Cipriano, 68 N.J. at 403, . In State v. Rizzo, 69 N.J. 28, 30, (1975), we referred to the principle in this language: However, a lawyer must avoid even the appearance of impropriety, DR 9-101, to th......
-
Steel v. General Motors Corp.
...and the New Jersey bar in particular, not to castigate an individual lawyer's conduct. As stated by the court in State v. Rizzo, 69 N.J. 28, 350 A.2d 225 (1975): A lawyer must avoid even the appearance of impropriety, ... to the end that the image of disinterested justice is not impoverishe......