suggests, that at this point, the defense can say with assurance that third-party guilt cannot be advanced. That simply does not validate Mann’s prior conduct. At the very least, this case involves an appearance of impropriety. See RPC 1.7(c) (setting forth appearance of impropriety rule). Although debate is raging over the continued vitality of that concept in other contexts, it is a critical factor in a capital case, where public confidence in the fairness of the proceedings leading to the verdict is a paramount consideration. State v. Loyal, 164 N.J. 418, 430, 753 A.2d 1073 (2000) (observing that when appearance of impropriety is found in criminal matter, disqualification of attorney is regularly required); State v. Rivera, 232 N.J.Super. 165, 177-78, 556 A.2d 1227 (App.Div.) (<HOLDING>), certif. denied, 117 N.J. 169, 564 A.2d 885
recognizing a defendants constitutional right to be represented by counsel of his own choice recognizing the conflict recognizing conflict holding that a conflict of interest independent of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel  constitute cause where the conflict caused the attorney to interfere with the petitioners right to pursue his  1 claim recognizing that attorneys may be disqualified under conflict of interest rules where defendants right to counsel of choice is outweighed by need to preserve public confidence in judicial system