The New Jersey Attorney General's Office should have provided representation and indemnification to the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office and four employees in a federal civil suit over an off-duty police sergeant who killed his ex-wife with his service weapon, the state Supreme Court ruled in a 7-0 decision.

Citing the attorney general's denial of both as "not in keeping" with Wright v. State, a 2001 decision holding that prosecutors have a "hybrid role" to serve both their county and state, the court on Tuesday reversed the Appellate Division in Gramiccioni v. Department of Law and Public Safety.

"All claims related to the MCPO defendants' acts or alleged omissions associated with duties imposed by" a state directive concerning domestic violence allegations against law enforcement officers, which "constitute state prosecutorial functions" and not administrative functions exempt from defense and indemnification by the Attorney General's Office, wrote Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, who delivered the 37-page opinion.

"The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed and this matter is remanded to the Law Division for proceedings consistent with this opinion."

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justices Barry Albin, Anne Patterson, Faustino Fernandez-Vina, Lee Solomon and Walter Timpone joined in the unanimous opinion.

The exclusion of representation and indemnification for what turned out to be a prosecutorial function by the MCPO put the attorney general and the Department of Law and Public Safety, which is under the attorney general's authority, squarely at odds with Wright, said LaVecchia, especially when the attorney general "parsed each iteration of the complaint."

"The Department's parsing of the pleadings in this matter led to crabbed determinations about the scope of law enforcement activity that are inconsistent with the letter and purpose of Wright," said LaVecchia.

Wright involved a claim by members of the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office for defense and indemnification in a civil suit filed by Isaac Wright, who had been prosecuted by employees of the SCPO and was found, in a postconviction relief proceeding, to have been the subject of improper actions by various members of that office. The attorney general refused Somerset County's request to provide representation and indemnification. In Wright, the Supreme Court held that when county prosecutors and their employees are involved in law enforcement functions under general state supervisory authority, the state should bear the responsibility for defense and indemnification for litigation generated by such activities.

In the MCPO case, the Appellate Division, affirming in part and reversing in part, concluded that the attorney general properly differentiated between law enforcement and administrative functions with respect to the original complaint, but erred when not consistently applying that approach to three subsequent amended complaints. The appellate court determined compliance with Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2000-3, which governs domestic violence allegations against officers, including training employees on weapons removal and return.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, the MCPO and other defendants argued that the Appellate Division erred in relying on N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21(d)(1), which deals with law enforcement's role in delivering handguns seized from members of the general public, and ignoring the clear language of the directive, which applies specifically when law enforcement personnel are accused of domestic violence.

The court granted certification last year and the case of consolidated appeals was argued on March 31.

Robyn Gigl of GluckWalrath in Trenton, who represented the MCPO defendants, issued this statement in an email: "The office is very happy with the court's unanimous decision, which upheld the position the prosecutor's office has taken since the outset of the case."

"The Court's decision is very helpful in clarifying when the Office of Attorney General must defend and indemnify the County Prosecutor's office. In that regard, it is an important decision, not only in this case, but for all County Prosecutor's offices when they are the subjects of civil lawsuits," Gigl added.

Daniel Vannella, assistant attorney general, represented Attorney General Gurbir Grewal's office. Spokesman Leland Moore said the office had no comment.

The County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey appeared as an amicus curaie in support of the MCPO defendants. Cumberland County Assistant Prosecutor Stephen Sayer submitted a brief on behalf of CPANJ. Neither Sayer nor CPANJ President Angelo Onofri could be reached for comment on Tuesday's decision, but the lead plaintiff in the case, Monmouth County Prosecutor Christopher Gramiccioni issued a statement.

"This unanimous decision by our highest court should be a welcome relief to anyone in law enforcement," Gramiccioni said.  "It ensures the AG's office will have our backs when we carry out our sworn obligations and AG directives.  We and the entire CPANJ are grateful for the Supreme Court's decision – one that not only properly indemnifies us, but will also save counties and taxpayers money."

According to the court, on July 16, 2015, Tamara Wilson-Seidle was murdered by her ex-husband, Philip Seidle, then a sergeant with the Neptune Township Police Department, with his service weapon while he was off duty. Seidle pleaded guilty in 2016 to aggravated manslaughter and was sentenced to 30 years behind bars, and last year unsuccessfully sought to withdraw his guilty plea, according to reports.

Wilson-Seidle's estate and survivors filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in federal court, naming Monmouth County Prosecutor Christopher Gramiccioni and his office. An amended pleading added three former MCPO assistant prosecutors as defendants: Gregory Schweers, Jacquelynn Seely and Richard Incremona. The family claimed the defendants were aware of, but failed to properly investigate, Seidle's history of domestic violence and abuse; and that prosecutors improperly returned his weapon to him, and failed to seize it when it should have been taken from him.

Seidle had his firearm taken away from him in 2012, three years before his wife's murder, by the Neptune Township Police Department and the MCPO because he was deemed unfit for duty, but 11 months later, Seidle's weapon was returned to him, despite questions about his instability, according to the court.

The civil suit claimed that because the domestic violence allegations involved a law enforcement officer, the MCPO defendants were subject to Directive No. 2000-3, including training employees on weapons removal and return.

Gramiccioni's office sent four written requests to the attorney general between 2016 and 2019 requesting representation and indemnification for any and all allegations against them, pursuant to Wright. In all but the first letter, the attorney general declined to defend and indemnify, determining that the functions at issue were largely administrative versus prosecutorial.

The MCPO defendants appealed that determination to the Appellate Division, which found that compliance with the directive was an administrative function and remanded the matter to the Law Division to determine reimbursement costs for some of the defense claims that the attorney  general rejected.

While the appeals were pending, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed Wilson-Seidle's estate's amended complaint without prejudice and granted leave for plaintiffs to replead the claims, and dismissed the state as a named defendant with prejudice. On Dec. 11, 2018, the federal court dismissed the second amended complaint, largely on grounds the pleadings lacked particularity, the Supreme Court noted on Tuesday

"The Attorney General's third and fourth decisions about defense and indemnification seem to have been influenced by the federal court's actions dismissing a claim based on state action that was entitled to sovereign immunity and the pleading gymnastics that plaintiffs were attempting in their effort to avoid the 11th Amendment consequences of matters being deemed law enforcement," LaVecchia wrote.

In January 2019, the plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint, and the MCPO defendants appealed again.

All four appeals were consolidated and addressed in an unpublished decision by the Appellate Division in which it distinguished between law enforcement and administrative functions in the original complaint.

LaVecchia said the attorney general and the Appellate Division failed to take into consideration the full nature of the directive.

"We view that training and supervision … as part of the State delegated responsibility to enforce the law that the Attorney General has entrusted to prosecutors," wrote LaVecchia. "The prosecutorial function should be covered, and the State is given control over the whole defense to ensure that the defense in such settings is not compromised by lack of coordination, or worse, inconsistency in position.

"The decisions of the MCPO defendants who considered whether Seidle could be re-armed and then remain armed were prosecutorial functions exercised on behalf of the State," LaVecchia said.

"As such, those determinations, as well as the claims of improper training and supervision of Neptune law enforcement with respect to implementation of the Directive, were entitled to defense and indemnification by the State."