Prosecutors had alleged Democratic power broker George Norcross and his allies were guilty of extortion and more, but the judge overseeing the case said their actions did not violate the law. (Photo by Hal Brown for New Jersey Monitor)
A Superior Court Judge on Wednesday dismissed all charges lodged in a racketeering indictment against Democratic power broker George Norcross and others, finding the indictment failed to state the elements of a crime.
Judge Peter Warshaw’s dismissal comes just over a month after he heard oral arguments in which attorneys for Norcross and five others charged in the alleged conspiracy argued the case must be dismissed because prosecutors had failed to name criminal conduct in their indictment.
“The indictment must be dismissed because its factual allegations do not constitute extortion or criminal coercion as a matter of law,” the judge wrote in his order to dismiss the charges.
Prosecutors had accused Norcross and others of leveraging Camden government and the threat of reputational harm to strong-arm Philadelphia-based developer Carl Dranoff into ceding development rights and to oust Anthony Perno, the former CEO of the nonprofit Cooper’s Ferry, now called Camden Community Partnership.
Charges against former Camden Mayor Dana Redd, NFI CEO Sidney Brown, Michaels Organization CEO John O’Donnell, and attorneys Philip Norcross (George Norcross’ brother) and Bill Tambussi were likewise dismissed.
Because Warshaw dismissed the case without prejudice, prosecutors can appeal the decision. Attorney General Matt Platkin said he intends to do just that.
“We disagree strongly with the trial court’s decision, and we are appealing immediately,” Platkin said in a statement. “After years in which the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently cut back on federal public corruption law, and at a time in which the federal government is refusing to tackle corruption, it has never been more important for state officials to take corruption head on.”
Attorneys for Norcross did not immediately return a request for comment.
Warshaw accepted arguments from the defense that said the alleged threats cited in the indictment did not rise to the level of criminality and were instead permissible hard bargaining not uncommon in high-level negotiations between businesses.
During a negotiation at which attorneys were present, prosecutors allege Norcross told Dranoff, “If you f*** this up, I’ll f*** you up like you’ve never been f***ed up before. I’ll make sure you never do business in this town again.” When Dranoff asked if he was being threatened, Norcross said, “Absolutely,” according to prosecutors.
The judge wrote that “not every threat is criminal or even wrong.”
“The court is not called upon to consider whether the redevelopment could have proceeded in a better, more fair, less political way. The court is asked to evaluate whether this ‘threat’ was criminal,” Warshaw wrote.
Extortion and criminal coercion charges require an illegal threat, and the lack of one proved fatal to those charges, the judge found.
Warshaw further ruled the criminal enterprise that underpinned the state’s racketeering charges did not exist, citing a lack of evidence that Brown and O’Donnell attempted to do anything but further their own business interests.
He said Philip Norcross and Tambussi were likewise engaged in the regular practice of law and their conduct was not criminal.
“These lawyers had the right to bring or threaten to bring legal action. They certainly had the right to discuss and strategize legal actions even if those discussions involved finding a way to invoke the law to deliver a body blow to an adversary,” Warshaw wrote. “And clearly they had the right to engage in efforts to influence government action.”
Official misconduct charges against Redd — whom prosecutors accused of using her powers to aid the alleged criminal enterprise, partly in exchange for a lucrative position on the Rowan University-Rutgers Camden Board of Governors — likewise did not withstand scrutiny, the judge wrote.
Prosecutors alleged Redd committed official misconduct, tying the board position, which came with a $275,000 salary, and state legislation that boosted Redd’s pension. But the judge said evidence showed Redd did not misuse her office.
“The required misuse is not present in this case. That does not mean that there is not room to criticize the apparently close, mutually beneficial political relationship that the Mayor shared with George Norcross, a man of formidable influence. It just means that the Official Misconduct charge is not sustainable,” Warshaw wrote.
Warshaw also found the charges were time-barred by their statutes of limitations, which would prevent charges for criminal conduct before June 13, 2019. Many of the critical events cited by the indictment occurred prior to that date.
Prosecutors had argued the continued existence of the alleged criminal enterprise and defendants’ continued receipt of state tax credits meant the statute of limitations had not tolled.
The lack of a criminal enterprise was fatal to some charges, the judge said, adding that because the tax credits were received by firms tied to the defendants, and not the defendants themselves, they could not extend the statute of limitations.
“One must think that the State would have the ability to deny payments if it, for any reason, concluded that there was a crime actively being committed,” Warshaw wrote.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.