made by the individual officers, and not a superior officer. At various times when addressing the issue, the trial judge expressed the view that there was nothing he could do regarding defendant’s complaint. Although the judge correctly stated he could not compel witnesses to speak to the defense against their will, he did not lack any authority to remedy the situation in the event he found the allegations to be true. In State v. Boiardo, 172 N.J.Super. 528, 412 A.2d 1084 (Law Div.1980), the trial judge required that a government witness be produced for personal interview by defense counsel, but fully informed “he has an absolute and personal right to either grant or deny the interview” and terminate it at will. Id. at 532, 412 A.2d 1084; see also Carrigan, supra, 804 F.2d at 601, 603 (<HOLDING>); but see R. 3:13-2(a) (limiting circumstances
holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection holding that under the extraordinary circumstances found by the district court it was not an abuse of discretion to order that defendants be permitted to take depositions of the witnesses in the presence of their attorney and the governments counsel holding that it is an abuse of discretion  to dismiss a complaint merely because of the presence of superfluous matter holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife holding that abuse of discretion is the correct standard in reviewing a district court order disqualifying the district attorney for an appearance of impropriety