accused and force the reviewing courts to engage in “unguided speculation.” [Id. at 543, 410 A.2d 666 (citations omitted).] The Court recognized that its rule “amounts to an absolute bar to multiple representation unless defendants are fully advised of the problems involved.” Id. at 545, 410 A.2d 666; see Norman, supra, 151 N.J. at 24-25, 697 A.2d 511 (noting Bellucci created rule that simultaneous dual representation of criminal co-defendants by a private attorney or lawyer associated with that attorney was per se potential conflict, and prejudice would be presumed absent valid waiver). Here, the unique facts of the offenses presented do not suggest the necessity for application of the sweeping, prophylactic rule of Bellucci. Cf. State v. Bell, 90 N.J. 163, 167-71, 447 A.2d 525 (1982) (<HOLDING>). All defendants were originally represented by
holding that an attorneys conflict of interest gives rise to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the sixth amendment and establishes prejudice per se holding multiple representation by associates in a public defenders office does not give rise to bellucci per se potential conflict with presumed prejudice holding that the first amendment does not by itself give rise to a cause of action for damages holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se holding that prejudice is only presumed if there is proof of an actual conflict of interest