of interest existed, and that there was no reason to believe that defense counsel’s continued representation would be less than vigorous. Third, even if it can be said that the appearance of impropriety rule was violated, and I maintain that it was not while giving deference to the trial court, defendant and the prosecutor could waive a potential conflict under the circumstances. Given that a defendant can waive constitutional rights, such as the right to an attorney in a criminal case, Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); State v. Crisafi, 128 N.J. 499, 509, 608 A.2d 317 (1992), there is no reason why a defendant and the prosecutor could not waive an alleged appearance of impropriety. See State v. Purnell, 126 N.J. 518, 535-36, 601 A.2d 175 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Here, defendant, the prosecutor, and Posey
recognizing conflict recognizing the conflict holding that the defendant was deprived of his sixth amendment right to counsel where appointed counsels representation presented a conflict of interest holding that the defendant did not validly waive his right to conflictfree representation where the district court inadequately advised the defendant of the risks of multiple representation holding a defendant could waive any conflict based on his attorneys previous representation of a states witness in an unrelated matter