In 2018, the New Jersey Attorney General established a unit aimed at “strengthening public confidence in government institutions,” known as the Office of Public Integrity & Accountability (OPIA). This office would operate under the auspices of the Department of Law & Public Safety within the Office of the Attorney General (Executive Directive No. 2019-8). It was developed in response to criticisms from whistleblowers, defense attorneys, judges, and the media regarding the handling and resolution of corruption and official misconduct cases in the state. At the time of its founding, it was touted as a watchdog agency that would institutionalize accountability for corruption, handle wrongful conviction claims, and investigate official misconduct, thereby restoring public confidence in the justice system.
Since its inception, the OPIA has been formally tasked with (a) investigating and prosecuting public corruption, including bribery, fraud, and abuse of power by public officials, (b) overseeing law enforcement misconduct, including police shootings and other fatal encounters, (c) conducting complex and sensitive internal affairs investigations, and (d) ensuring government accountability (OPIA Statement, 2024). To accomplish these goals, the OPIA is comprised of three bureaus: the Corruption Bureau, the Integrity Bureau, and the Civil Rights Division. The Integrity Bureau’s portfolio focuses explicitly on official misconduct within law enforcement and governmental institutions; it is here that investigations of alleged prosecutorial misconduct should be addressed.
The OPIA does not release comprehensive data on all the cases it investigates or litigates. Yet the unit has routinely faced criticism regarding its ability to provide aggressive oversight, secure convictions, and resolve cases in a timely manner (Biryukov, 2025). Ironically, the OPIA, which is at heart a prosecuting agency under the Division of Criminal Justice in New Jersey and employs career prosecutors to carry out its work, was itself accused of prosecutorial misconduct in several cases (Wildstein, 2024). While the unit has had some successes in indicting and convicting certain public officials of corruption or misconduct, the unit is notorious for dismissing misconduct charges after prosecutors have withheld exculpatory evidence, improperly handled a political corruption scheme, failed to state the elements of the crime, drafted “unconstitutionally vague” indictments, and failed to record suspects’ interrogations, as required by state law, for example (Biryukov, 2025; Wildstein, 2025). Further, numerous state lawmakers, in addition to the NAACP and the New Jersey AFL-CIO, have gone on record to condemn the OPIA for its exorbitantly long investigations, which sometimes take years and regularly exceed the Attorney General’s own rule that misconduct probes should be completed within 180 days (Biryukov, 2025; Difilippo, 2023). The OPIA’s misconduct investigations have focused predominantly on police and correctional officers, with little mention of prosecutorial misconduct as an issue that could undermine the public’s confidence in the legal process. For these and other reasons, state lawmakers have called for an independent monitor and have tapped more than one federal prosecutor to head the unit in the past two years (Janoski, 2025).
We were unable to identify even one case in which the OPIA charged an individual prosecutor with misconduct. The only publicly available evidence of the OPIA turning its gaze toward prosecutors was when it investigated the Warren County Prosecutor’s Office for allegedly misreporting hours worked to secure larger grants in support of the office’s operating budget (Final Memorandum 2024). Of the cases reported to the public, the OPIA has investigated and charged public officials, including police officers, fire chiefs, corrections officers, and even civilians who have made false reports against state troopers (Deak, 2025). None has been a state or local prosecutor.
From a sociological standpoint, this is not a particularly surprising outcome. Andrew Abbott’s (1988) research on the system of professions describes powerful professions, like law or medicine, as able to claim exclusive authority over certain tasks by linking them to a distinctive body of knowledge, requiring certifications or specialized education to create boundaries around insiders to the profession, and engaging in self-regulation rather than letting itself be policed by others. In essence, according to Abbott, the system of professions is a system where experts police themselves to ensure quality, protect the public, and maintain the integrity and authority of their field. Yet there is an inherent conflict of interest when members of the profession are tasked with policing their peers. It is challenging to remain objective when evaluating the actions of colleagues who share similar norms, loyalties, and professional identities. In-group biases that generate trust and cooperation between prosecutors may simultaneously undermine their willingness to second-guess a colleague’s judgments. Professionals may also worry that identifying too many problems can invite external oversight measures, which could erode the profession’s autonomy.
It is for these reasons that internal review offices often represent an unsatisfactory mechanism for disciplining errant prosecutors. In many ways, then, asking the OPIA to investigate and litigate allegations of prosecutorial misconduct may not be an ideal solution to the problem. Due to a lack of will and/or resources, prosecutorial misconduct may go unchecked (Schoenfeld, 2005). To address this gap, we focus our research on the appellate courts. While judges are members of the legal profession, and many were former prosecutors, their distinct role obligations should alleviate some of the issues associated with prosecutors policing prosecutors. As such, although the higher courts reflect an imperfect control over prosecutorial misconduct (see Griffiths et al., 2023, 2024; Scheuerman et al., 2023, 2024), they reflect the “major source of oversight for prosecutors” (Scheuerman et al., 2023, p. 2847). As part of the current project, we are attempting to determine the significance of this check in holding prosecutors accountable by identifying and coding all appellate decisions in which New Jersey’s higher courts acknowledged prosecutorial misconduct between 2010 and 2015.
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. The University of Chicago Press.
Attorney General Administrative Executive Directive No. 2019-8. (2019). Directive codifying the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability (OPIA). State of New Jersey. https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/ag-Directive-2019-8.pdf
Biryukov, N. (2025, October 10). NJ Senate president calls for oversight of state anti-corruption unit. New Jersey Monitor. https://newjerseymonitor.com/2025/10/10/nj-public-anticorruption-unit-monitor/
Deak, M. (2025, December 9). Two charged with false sexual assault claims against NJ state troopers. My Central Jersey. https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/crime/2025/12/09/nj-state-police-false-sexual-assault-allegations-randal-kelco-randal-kelco/87686469007/
Difilippo, D. (2023, June 14). New bill would set time limit on state watchdog’s lengthy investigations. New Jersey Monitor. https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/06/14/new-bill-would-set-time-limit-on-state-watchdogs-lengthy-investigations/
Griffiths, E., Scheuerman, H. L., & Brown, R. (2024). Appellate court policing of prosecutorial misconduct. New Jersey State Policy Lab. https://policylab.rutgers.edu/appellate-court-policing-of-prosecutorial-misconduct/
Griffiths, E., Scheuerman, H. L., & Xie, S. (2023). Prosecutorial actus reus: Appellate review of prosecutorial misconduct and the diminishment of responsibility. International Journal on Responsibility, 6(1), 24-41.
Janoski, S. (2025, September 17). Veteran federal prosecutor Eric Gibson to lead New Jersey Office of Public Integrity. The Jersey Vindicator. https://jerseyvindicator.org/2025/09/17/veteran-federal-prosecutor-eric-gibson-to-lead-new-jersey-office-of-public-integrity/
Scheuerman, H. L., Griffiths, E., & Brown, R. (2024). Prosecutorial errors: Determining “harmless” vs. “not” at the appellate level. New Jersey State Policy Lab. https://policylab.rutgers.edu/prosecutorial-errors-determining-harmless-vs-not-at-the-appellate-level/
Scheuerman, H. L., Griffiths, E., & Medwed, D. S. (2023). Post-conviction review on trial: When do appellate courts correct for prosecutorial misconduct? Crime & Delinquency, 69(13-14), 2846-2873.
Schoenfeld, H. (2005). Violated trust: Conceptualizing prosecutorial misconduct. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(3), 250-271.
State of New Jersey, Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Public Integrity and Accountability. (2024, April 4). Final Memorandum. https://wrnjradio.com/wp-content/uploads/WCPO-Executive-Summary-4-4-24-_Redacted.pdf
Wildstein, D. (2024, August 7). Embattled N.J. public corruption unit acts tough, but can they win a conviction? After nearly six years, the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability is sharply criticized for inaction and prosecutorial misconduct. New Jersey Globe. https://newjerseyglobe.com/state-government/n-j-public-corruption-unit-acts-tough-but-can-they-win-a-conviction/
Wildstein, D. (2025, October 2). Citing OPIA mistakes and delays, judge dismissed 14 indictments in beatings of women prisoners: Judge finds mistakes in grand jury presentment, says four years violated corrections officers right to a speedy trial. New Jersey Globe. https://newjerseyglobe.com/state-government/citing-opia-mistakes-and-delays-judge-dismissed-14-indictments-in-beatings-of-women-prisoners/