New Jersey prosecutors appeal George Norcross dismissal

From Camden and Cherry Hill to Trenton and the Jersey Shore, what about life in New Jersey do you want WHYY News to cover? Let us know.

New Jersey prosecutors have filed a 120-page appeal of Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw’s decision to dismiss the indictment against South Jersey Democratic boss Goerge E. Norcross III and his allies.

The Office of the Attorney General filed the appeal Monday night.  Because the filing surpasses the 50-page limit for initial briefs, it is still awaiting acceptance. Deputy Attorney General Adam Klein filed a motion seeking permission to relax the page limit, saying the additional pages are needed “to lay out the complex corruption allegations at the heart of the indictment” and “to address each of the issues in [Warshaw’s]  opinion.”

Thea Johnson, associate dean for faculty research and development and law professor at Rutgers Law School, said a longer page count “does make sense” because of the complexities of the alleged crime and racketeering law.

“It involves not just one defendant, but multiple people who are being tried for having different roles in a criminal enterprise,” she said. “For that reason, you really might need additional pages in order to cover all the different areas of the crime and also all the different players and actors involved in the case.”

Michael Critchely Sr., the attorney representing George Norcross, dismissed the appeal calling it “another failed legal argument by the Attorney General — the only difference is that this redux version is longer than the original.”

“The fatal legal flaws remain,” he said. “As has become obvious to everyone, Mr. Platkin’s obsession has been a political prosecution from its inception.  We look forward to again rebutting his fatuous claims on the merits.”

Prosecutors said there are only two types of motions to dismiss — a facial motion and a “some evidence” motion — and that Warshaw granted a third kind of motion “that does not exist in our law or any other.”

“The trial court did not identify legal defects that would make conviction impossible with more evidence,” they said. “Instead the trial court simply asked whether there was sufficient evidence cited in the indictment itself, without reviewing the reams of testimony and exhibits the grand jury saw.”

According to the filing, prosecutors presented more than 2,000 pages of testimony, including 341 pieces of evidence to a grand jury over a five-month period.

Last June, a grand jury returned a 13-count indictment against Norcross, his younger brother Philip Norcross, former Camden Mayor Dana L. Redd, logistics executive Sidney R. Brown, attorney William M. Tambussi and developer John O’Donnell. All of the defendants have pleaded not guilty.

After a day of arguments in January, Warshaw dismissed the indictment the following month, stating the allegations did not constitute a crime and that prosecutors filed the charges too late.

Prosecutors allege that George Norcross and his allies conspired to take control of waterfront properties to further his business interests and his image as a hero in Camden.

Defense attorneys for the Norcross enterprise called the indictment nothing more than a press release and that Attorney General Matt Platkin is trying to boost his own profile for future political office. They called Warshaw’s decision “bulletproof.” But Johnson said it is unknown what will happen before a three-judge panel on appeal.

“Certainly, the defense is going to make their arguments that this decision from below is a bulletproof decision,” she said. “Whether they’ll be successful on appeal, we’ll have to just wait and see.”

JoEllyn Jones, a practitioner in residence with Seton Hall University Law School’s Center for Social Justice, said the judicial panel will take a look at the entire record before making a verdict. From there, the dismissal could either stand, be reversed or they could “kind of split the baby.”

“The Appellate Division has a number of options,” Jones explained. “They can go forward and say, ‘We agree on this area, but we disagree on this area.’