New Jersey Appellate Division Decision – Prosecutor Conflict of Interest in Criminal Law

On February 21, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided State of New Jersey v. Daishon I. Smith, 478 N.J. Super. 52 (App. Div.

2024), which addressed whether an entire county prosecutor’s office must be recused from a criminal prosecution when the county prosecutor has a personal, disqualifying conflict of interest. The Appellate Division held that so long as the conflicted prosecutor is completely screened from the case, and has no oversight, the prosecutor’s office should not be disqualified. As a result, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision allowing the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office (MCPO) to continue prosecuting the defendant and his co-defendants in this criminal matter, despite the county prosecutor’s conflict of interest.

Facts and Procedural History of the Prosecutor Conflict of Interest

In February 2020, the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office (MCPO) initiated an investigation into gang-related activities across several New Jersey counties, focusing on a criminal enterprise known as “Golden State.” The task force found evidence that Golden State members had acted in concert to distribute illegal drugs, firearms, recruit members, and expand their criminal activities. In October 2020, defendant Daishon I. Smith, was charged with multiple crimes, including racketeering and conspiracy to commit murder. Later that month, Smith and more than thirty co-defendants were charged with numerous first- and second-degree offenses, including racketeering, drug offenses, and weapons offenses. And in 2021 Smith and the co-defendants were indicted for over 120 additional criminal offenses.

For approximately seven months, from October 30, 2020, to May 21, 2021, Raymond S. Santiago, then a private attorney, represented Smith in the criminal matter. The trial court granted Santiago’s motion to be relieved as Smith’s counsel in May 2021, based on disagreements. On October 7, 2022, more than a year after Santiago was relieved as counsel, he was sworn in as Acting Monmouth County Prosecutor. In November 2022 Santiago was sworn in as the Monmouth County Prosecutor, creating a personal conflict of interest due to his prior representation of the defendant.

The Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify the Prosecutor’s Office

In February 2023, Smith, joined by more than ten co-defendants, moved to disqualify the entire MCPO from prosecuting his case due to the prosecutor’s conflict of interest created by Santiago’s prior involvement. Smith argued that Santiago’s conflict should disqualify the entire office from handling the prosecution. The MCPO responded by submitting evidence that Santiago had been and would continue to be fully screened from the case and had no supervisory role or communication with the prosecution team handling the case.

The Attorney General’s Office reviewed the matter and agreed that, provided Santiago continued to be “walled off” from any involvement, and that the First Assistant Prosecutor assumed supervisory authority over the case, that the MCPO could continue to prosecute Smith. The trial court denied the motion to disqualify the MCPO, ruling that Santiago’s conflict should not be imputed to the entire office.

Appellate Division’s Review of the Prosecutor Conflict of Interest

On appeal, Smith argued that Santiago’s personal conflict of interest should have been imputed to the entire MCPO. The Appellate Division disagreed, and held, in accord with the majority of states, that automatic disqualification of the entire prosecutor’s office is not required based on prior representation. In reaching that determination, the Appellate Division reviewed New Jersey’s applicable Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs), particularly RPC 1.9 and RPC 1.11, which address conflicts of interest. Further, the Appellate Division held that in this case the MCPO need not be recused from continuing to prosecute Smith and his co-defendants, provided Santiago continues to be completely screened from the prosecution and does not share any confidential information he learned while he represented defendant. Lastly, the Appellate Division held that the screening procedures in place were sufficient to prevent any actual or perceived conflict, thereby eliminating the need for the Attorney Generals’ consent.

Application of the Majority Rule on Prosecutor Conflict of Interest

The Appellate Division’s decision aligns with the rule followed by the majority of other states rejecting a per se rule of disqualification. Under this rule, disqualification of an entire prosecutor’s office is not required as long as the conflicted prosecutor is effectively screened and has no involvement in the prosecution. The Appellate Division found that New Jersey caselaw supports this more flexible approach, which avoids unnecessarily disqualifying entire offices when proper screening is in place to address a prosecutor’s conflict of interest.

The Appellate Division emphasized that in that case there was no evidence Santiago had shared any confidential information or participated in the prosecution. Thus, it affirmed the lower court’s decision and held that the MCPO could continue its prosecution of Smith and the co-defendants.

Key Takeaways of the Prosecutor Conflict of Interest Decision

The New Jersey Appellate Division’s ruling in State of New Jersey v. Daishon I. Smith establishes a clear precedent: a personal conflict of interest by a prosecutor does not automatically disqualify an entire prosecutor’s office. Instead, as long as effective screening measures are implemented and the conflicted prosecutor remains isolated from the case, the office can continue to prosecute without risking impropriety. This decision ensures that prosecutorial conflicts are handled appropriately while maintaining the integrity and efficiency of criminal prosecutions.

Conclusion: Prosecutor Conflict of Interest and Criminal Law Precedent

This decision serves as an important precedent in New Jersey criminal law. It demonstrates that personal conflicts of interest for prosecutors, even those in supervisory roles, do not require disqualifying an entire office if proper safeguards, such as screening, are in place.

The Appellate Division’s reliance on the majority rule helps maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the criminal justice system while allowing prosecutions to proceed without unnecessary disruption.

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929.

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.