interfere with a witness’s decision to testify for a defendant. Such conduct, even if motivated by good faith, cannot be toleratedL.]” Id. at 262, 877 A.2d 229. The Court has also found such constitutionally prohibited interference in plea agreements that required co-defendants not to testify for defendants. State v. Fort, 101 N.J. 123, 131, 501 A.2d 140 (1985) (noting the “search for truth” is not well served when the State attempts to fortify its case “by sealing the lips of witnesses”). Our courts’ holdings and analyses mirror those in federal eases where government action has thrown roadblocks to the testimony of witnesses who would be favorable to the defendant. See, e.g., Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 17-18, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1922-23, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019, 1022-23 (1967) (<HOLDING>); Newell v. Hanks, 283 F.3d 827, 837-838 (7th
holding that the fourteenth amendment incorporated the sixth amendment right to counsel holding two state statutes that prohibited coindictees from testifying for one another violated the sixth amendment holding that the court lacks jurisdiction over sixth amendment claims because the sixth amendment is not moneymandating holding the sixth amendment applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment recognizing that the sixth amendment is not violated every time the public is excluded from a courtroom an unjustified closure may on its facts be so trivial as not to violate the sixth amendment guarantee