New Jersey Judge Accused of Allowing Police Officer to Serve As Prosecutor And Denying Counsel to Defendant

Linden Municipal Court Judge Louis DiLeo has been accused of an extraordinary act of misconduct in New Jersey. Wendell Kirkland alleges that DiLeo convicted him of burglary without the use of a prosecutor and even allowed a police officer to question him as if he were the prosecutor.

DiLeo is also accused of refusing a public defense attorney to one of the men after he requested it in court. DiLeo reportedly ruled that the defendant had already waived that right by earlier claiming to have private counsel.

It is not clear where Nicholas Scutari, the local prosecutor, was at the time.

If true, that would be an extraordinary denial of due process for the defendants and a series allegation of judicial misconduct for the judge.

Source: ABA Journal

38 thoughts on “New Jersey Judge Accused of Allowing Police Officer to Serve As Prosecutor And Denying Counsel to Defendant”

  1. Good for him !!! I hope he faces the maximum penalty under the law . He has an ego that has gone unchecked for way too long . He is not above the law and can not continue to act as judge , jury and executioner . This is about being a public servant to help people and not abusing the authority that has bestowed upon him . I will be following the outcome closely to see how due process prevails . Let’s hope he has a judge that knows how to do thier job better than him .

  2. RE: Mike Spindell, February 13, 2011 at 11:14 am

    I am sorry that the way in which I find it necessary to write, because of research ethics concerns, so as to constrain some aspects of my writing to affect while excluding intellect, makes making unambiguous sense of some of what I write difficult to impossible.

    However, research ethics, as I can grasp them, require me to write as I do or not write at all. So, while how I write may difficult to process, my understanding of the neurological mechanism of graduated focal catatonic stupor precludes my writing with greater clarity for now.

    I apologize for not yet having learned how to safely write with greater clarity. I am learning what I find I need to learn, as fast as I can learn it.

  3. Brian,
    I get you and I get your struggle up to the point which is most problemmatic and that is of course I have no way of experiencing how hard things may be for you and your great effort to cope with them. I think you are on the right track using mindfulness and that can help your communication tremendously. In that respect have you explored CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy)which I believe has some success in dealing with the autism spectrum. I was institute trained in Gestalt Psychotherapy, but were I to go back to the psychological field today I would get training in CBT and think highly of its possibilities. I commend you in your struggles and it seems from what you say that you have coped extremely well. My comments on the density of your communications have been out of frustration at the difficulty in deciphering them, since I believe you have a lot of good information and perspective to impart.

  4. Mike,

    Thanks for your comments, I am grateful for your telling me of your experience with my writing, and you are helping me.

    However, I am someone who, in high school, got scores in the twenties to thirties on tests in high school physics and earned straight A’s doing so. I was working on physics concerns far above anything the physics teacher ever dreamed of teaching to a high school class. Came time for the College Board tests, it occurred to me to find out if there was anything of use in my high school physics book and I peeked at it for the first time, ran through it in less than a week, took the College Board test in physics and so clobbered it that Carleton exempted me from the physical science requirement unless I chose to major in a physical science, which I did. I was told that no other student in my class received such an exemption, and that the Carleton admissions committee expected me to be valedictorian of my class.

    Boy, did I fool them! I could keep up with high school Latin in Sturgeon Bay for the year and a half of high school I had in Sturgeon Bay, and Detroit Lakes had no foreign language classes. Because I cannot think in words, the pace of German at Carleton was impossibly fast for me, and there was no provision, as there now is, for a manageable alternative. So, I did not have any way to become valedictorian because the effort to learn German trashed my ability to study effectively for tests in other classes.

    Also, something like 80 percent of my studying at Carleton was independent, non-credit, without academic permission, study regarding what eventually became my doctorate.

    As I continue to work to find words which work, my purpose here is to learn what I can learn, and for that purpose, what I have been doing has been working beyond what I had imagined would plausibly happen.

    I am genuine and sincere in what I am doing, and my not having the ability to think in words is why what I write may be difficult for others to follow, for it is close to being a high-dimensional savant stream of consciousness.

    Because I have absolutely no access to what has been called “theory of mind” (See Deborah R. Barnbaum, “The Ethics of Autism: Among them, But Not of Them,” Indiana University Press, 2008), I use instead a form of mindfulness which, though all I have with which to actually work, somewhat resembles the methods of depth psychoanalysis.

    I have known people who told me they found Heinz Kohut, “Analysis of the Self” to be difficult; for me it is as easy as a “dime pulp novel.”

    What I have observed here on this blawg is an assortment of massively cathected, profoundly idealized parent imago effects and affects; along with a contrasting goodly collection of really-together people.

    Oh, Mike, since you “asked,” you fit into the latter goodly collection in my view…

    Were it within my purpose to convince or persuade, I would write so I would convince or persuade. Alas, doing that is the pathway I recognize as of authoritarianism.

    Why, I wonder, would you expect to understand that which I write about only because I do not yet understand it. I write such because I make the best effort I am able to make to understand it myself, and many comments here are beautifully helpful in that effort.

    Thanks for your comments. They are very helpful.

  5. However I do admit to being a lousy typist and editor.

    “it’s hard “TO” understand it”

  6. “I come in friendship, not in enmity.”

    I don’t doubt it, but your writing is so abstruse it’s hard
    understand it and I’m a pretty smart guy with excellent cognition skills.

  7. “My interest is the developing or restoring useful, conscious communication with the procedural brain function, and the way I use words is intended to facilitate procedural word-based communication while averting as much as practical declarative word-based communication.”

    If that’s what you think you are doing, I would humbly suggest you rethink you methods, they’re not working. Now I understand you may feel that you are doing what’s appropriate and so if others don’t understand you, then that’s their problem. I would respectfully suggest then that you meditate on the old koan “If a tree falls in a forest……” I’m assuming of course that you are commenting here because you want to communicate. If that’s not the case well then have all the fun you want.

  8. I don’t give a damn what spirit you come in, Brian, because clearly you have an agenda. You spout anti-legalist, and ergo antisocial and anti-civilization, crap. And by crap? I mean nonsense, hokum, delusional drivel, falsehoods, lies . . . take your pick.

    If you don’t like that people don’t just accept what you say carte blanc?

    Too bad.

    You’re in the wrong place for that.

  9. RE: Mike Spindell, February 12, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    I get it. You are extremely intelligent and accomplished. There are some things you say with which I agree. However, your manner of exposition tends to ramble and can become off-putting. How about becoming more precise in the points you make?


    Oh. Sorry.

    Alas, I am doing everything I can imagine in an effort to specifically avoid “making points.”

    “Making points” is of the declarative brain function (see Robert Scaer, “The Trauma Spectrum” (mentioned in some of my prior posts and readily found in bookstores, especially Internet bookstores).

    My interest is the developing or restoring useful, conscious communication with the procedural brain function, and the way I use words is intended to facilitate procedural word-based communication while averting as much as practical declarative word-based communication.

    The contrast may be more apparent in the mantra I have sometimes heard a parent hurl at a child, as, “Do as I say, and not as I do.”

    What is the difficulty with “Do as I say”? “Say” is of the declarative or making points; points are dimensionless and cannot “do” anything.

    So, “Do as I say” amounts to “Do as I don’t do” and that can scramble a child’s brain. Scrambling a child’s brain is abusing the child’s brain, abusing a child’s brain traumatizes the child’s brain, and a traumatized brain is a damaged brain.

  10. Within the world made of adversarial process, the rule of law absolutely requires the adversarial process, because, without it, neither the world of adversarial process nor its form of rule of law would exist.

    And that is a tautology, per se.

    Alas, what you regard as my being full of “fertilizer” is perfectly true in the world made only of and possessed only by, the adversarial principle. (aka, the Prince of Adversity!)

    I live in the world made only of affirmation and possessed only by the affirmational principle. (aka, the Prince of Peace!

    What is, in the adversarial world, plant fertilizer, is, in the affirmational world, perfectly nutritious ambrosia fruit salad with health-giving divinity candy for dessert.

    The world ruled by the Prince of Adversity is a world of trials and tribulations, of damages and destructions, of falsehoods adversely defined as truths. In the world ruled by the Prince of Adversity, I would instantaneously and eternally die were I to actually live there for even a minute fraction of an iota of an instant.

    As you tell me you embrace and endorse the world of death and destruction, its own best adversary, you make vividly clear why I can never fully be with you while you as-though choose there to reside.

    Almost the whole of the structure of law is useful and valid and is to be retained and improved as becomes possible. Revolutions, by their very nature, throw out all the necessary things along with the deemed-unnecessary. Revolutions always fail, because they reject the germ with the chaff. I deplore revolutions, I find revolutions purely revolting.

    Evolutions, in contrast, keep all that is useful, and set aside only that found toxic or otherwise dangerous. We do not have too many laws, and Philip K. Howard was tragically mistaken if he really believed that we have too much law or that law is suffocating us.

    The footing-bedrock interface of the structure of society, the adversarial principle, was impossible to recognize for what it is, until sufficient scientific research and its findings had been completed as to allow anyone to have a realistic model of human brain function and process. That modeling has been accomplished by people who have studied neurology in depth and detail, Hughlings Jackson, the Luria Brothers, Abraham Low, Oliver Sachs, and hundreds upon hundreds of others.

    BiL, you remind me of an imaginary little not-yet-knowing more than a very few words girl who, at a family picnic, everyone else enjoying themselves without carefully watching the girl, picks up a piece of meat dropped by someone several days before, the meat having become contaminated with a lethal dose of botulism, and one of her family members seeing the girl pick up the meat and start bringing it toward her mouth, only to have it taken away, and little girl screaming in all-out protest at the deprivation, not knowing that her not having been so deprived against her will deprived her of being very soon dead.

    BiL, you were given to pick up the poison of hatred in the form of belief in the adversarial principle when you were not nearly old enough nor informed enough to have any way to avoid doing so.

    You were innocent then, as now, for you did not, with any hint of informed consent take in the adversarial principle.

    I will not distort the hatred you send my way so that you cannot see it for what it is as it is reflected back toward you. What you find of “crap” (your word, not mine) of which you claim I am full of, is that “crap” “again, your word, not mine) which you are attempting to transfer to me so you can be free of it, instead of being full of it.

    What I know and understand, which you have yet to know or understand, is like that child when Neo first visits the Oracle, in The Matrix movie. Seemingly bending a spoon with thoughts alone, the child tells Neo, “There is no spoon.”

    The news for you, BiL, is that there is no “crap,” in the sense I have a hunch you are using that word as a memorial to the sanitation improvements made possible by that water closet invention said to be of Thomas Crapper.

    When will I accept that your claim, made without demonstrable evidence of any sort, that my work is of any sort of fraud? I will accept your claim the moment you demonstrate its validity. Otherwise, when will I accept it? Never.

    For every “epithet” word you can find and use, I have a thousand non-epithet words for reply, and no words for retaliation.

    I do not ask that you believe anything of me, not even do I ask you to believe that the patterns of light contrast which I imagine are of computer display images representing the words I write, actually exist on your computer display.

    What I do ask, is for a non-epithetic, non-pathetic, non-pathological demonstration of one mistake actually made which, after having been made, could actually have been avoided.

    For, as I observe, that is the dastardly deception inimical even to the adversarial principle, itself.

    I come in friendship, not in enmity.

  11. “You can disagree all you like.”~Buddha
    I know, even I can get all adversary like… 🙂

    My point is not that we toss the whole thing…it is that Lawyers especially need to recognize when disputes can be used to thwart the system….and to respond accordingly.

  12. W=c,

    Law is not only adversarial nor did I claim that it was.

    What I did claim is that adversarial process is required as a component of the law by necessity of operation in dispute resolution.

    You can disagree all you like. You can point to flaws in the existing execution of both adversarial and non-adversarial processes. As I said, there is always room for improvement in seeking just and equitable systems. However, none of that changes that disputes – adversarial by their very nature – must be resolved by adversarial process. Why? Because the other options are proven to be considerably more damaging to the fabric of society than process. Every successful civilization since Sumer has had some form of adversarial process to deal with dispute resolution. History shows it as a necessary if imperfect requisite to maintain social stability. To insist otherwise is counterproductive, ill-advised, antisocial and antithetical to civilizations contiguous persistence.

  13. Brian,
    I get it. You are extremely intelligent and accomplished. There are some things you say with which I agree. However, your manner of exposition tends to ramble and can become off-putting. How about becoming more precise in the points you make?

  14. Buddha Is Laughing 1, February 12, 2011 at 11:17 am


    You are once again full of crap.

    The adversarial process is REQUIRED for the rule of law. Without it? People would be reduced to self-help in dispute resolution.
    Buddha, I think you and Brian are 2 poles to 1 equation. For what it’s worth….I have experienced being “…reduced to self-help in dispute resolution.” by overly adversarial attorneys. Law is not ONLY adversarial. Much there is that must go through legal channels in our society that is not adversarial….and lawyers who cannot operate in any other fashion than to fight will subconsciously (or if corrupt, consciously) victimize even those law abiding citizenry who attempt to behave in a legal fashion. I’ve been there, it’s not pretty. It demeans and undermines the whole legal system which I personally think we need…until it does more harm than good…

  15. Brian,

    You are once again full of crap.

    The adversarial process is REQUIRED for the rule of law. Without it? People would be reduced to self-help in dispute resolution. This would lead to simply tyranny of the strong over the weak: a manifestly unjust state. Your inability to grasp this simple concept notwithstanding, I’ll keep repeating it so no one else gets the idea that you are even remotely credible on the subject.

    Making the law more just? Is an entirely separate issue. Justice is aspirational in addition to being a practical concern. You’d be hard pressed to find an attorney who will say the law is perfectly just and needs no refinement. Justice Learned Hand – a most respected jurist and legal expert – once called law a “pale shadow of justice”. It’s not perfect but it can be more efficient and just than it is now.

    However, restricting or removing adversarial process is not one of those ways. Such actions would critically impair the rule of law from being enforced without the violence inherent in self-help. In perpetually attacking adversarial process, you are attacking the very foundation of the rule of law and promoting inequity and injustice. It is antisocial and anti-legalism to continue doing so.

    You aren’t bearing “good news”.

    You’re bearing a bag of flaming dog shit that would herald anarchy.

  16. Kill the messenger before the messenger can tell the message and both messenger and message are destroyed.

    It may be unwise to kill messengers bearing good news.

    Truer words never spoken…

    and I loved the vid! Most excellent funny!

    (but I didn’t get through all of your posting I’m afraid….)

Comments are closed.