Attorneys for George Norcross to argue charges against him should be dismissed

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.

Attorneys representing South Jersey Democratic boss George E. Norcross III and his allies will be back in court Wednesday to argue that the charges against them should be dropped.

State prosecutors charged Norcross and 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 in a 13-count indictment last June. They stand accused of manipulating a New Jersey tax credit program for personal gain by taking over Camden’s waterfront properties through extortion and coercion, among other charges.

They’ve all pleaded not guilty.

At their last court date in September, Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw set a timeline for prosecutors and defense attorneys to submit written briefs. Michael Critchley, who is representing George Norcross, is leading the argument to dismiss the charges. Other defense attorneys submitted supplemental arguments.

The overall message from defense attorneys is that Norcross and his associates committed no crime. Here are the main takeaways of their argument.

1. George Norcross was talking tough business talk

Critchley argues that threats the elder Norcross made to Carl Dranoff, referred to as “Developer-1” in the indictment, were in response to “hardball tactics” Dranoff used as they were negotiating the view easement for his Victor Lofts property.

In the summer of 2016, 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,” the indictment reads.

According to the indictment, Dranoff took Norcross’ threat seriously. But Critchley argues Norcross was engaged in “classic hard bargaining” and that both sides were “trying to extract better terms.”

2. Attorneys argue that the charges are beyond the statute of limitations

Independent of their assertion that no crime took place, the defense attorneys argue that some of the charges from prosecutors are beyond the statute of limitations, and occurred too long ago to be subject to legal proceedings.

In his argument, Critchley points to count 13 — official misconduct — which is solely charged against Redd. The lawyer argued that the alleged misconduct needed to occur after June 2017 for it to be a timely charge.

“The only allegations about Mayor Redd, thin and inadequate as they are, are from years earlier: Her alleged advice to [Cooper Ferry Partnership] to work with Philip Norcross dates back to 2013 and 2014; her alleged refusal to return Dranoff’s phone call took place in 2016,” Critchley wrote in his argument. “All of that is time-barred.”

Attorneys for Tambussi argued that several counts dealing with misconduct by a corporate official and financial facilitation of criminal activity have a five-year window, and that limit has been exceeded.

3. No official misconduct occurred, even by Redd

Defense attorneys argue that the only public official named in the indictment is Redd, who was mayor of Camden from 2010 to 2018, and that she did not do anything wrong in an official capacity.

Critchley took issue with one allegation that Redd told the Cooper Ferry Partnership CEO to deal with Philip Norcross to ensure that the organization’s projects “enjoyed the ‘approval’ of important ‘stakeholders[s].”

“So what?” Critchley wrote. “The Indictment suggests these acts were nefarious because George and Philip Norcross had no ‘formal role with CFP or the City.’”

But the lawyer claimed that what prosecutors allege was misconduct by Redd isn’t, adding, “It is commendable and, indeed, part of the job description.”

“No binding legal duty instructs a mayor when she can (or cannot) suggest or facilitate meetings or try to build consensus among local civic stakeholders,” Critchley wrote.

Attorneys for Redd don’t dispute she was Camden’s mayor, but point out in their brief that actions attributed to her were not taken in her official capacity. Once all of her private actions are removed, they wrote, “exists one singular (and time-barred) allegation against Former Mayor Redd: that she did not communicate with Dranoff related to the rezoning of the Radio Lofts.”

“Despite its length, the Indictment against Former Mayor Redd contains no indication that she knowingly violated a duty,” the brief reads. “Rather, the Indictment simply parrots the language of the statute.”

Norcross friends — N.J. NAACP and labor — support his free speech

The New Jersey NAACP State Conference, state AFL-CIO and the New Jersey Building and Construction Trades Council also back defense arguments that some of the language used by Norcross was nothing more than hallmarks of aggressive bargaining by “sophisticated businessmen.”

The coalition filed an amicus brief on Dec. 20 asking to participate during oral arguments.

In their argument, the coalition wrote that allegations of extortion in the indictment “would penalize tough economic bargaining that is unavoidable in a free market economy and place a chilling effect on the ability of Amici’s members to advocate for equality, safe workplace positions, and underserved communities.”

While the state is not taking a position on the coalition’s filings, prosecutors said their participation in oral arguments would be unnecessary due to the parties being fully briefed.

State: Indictment is timely and defendants’ actions are not constitutionally protected

Using the first count of the indictment, state prosecutors argue that defense attorneys are wrong when they claim that the charges were outside of the statute of limitations. The first count is the racketeering conspiracy, or RICO, charge.

Prosecutors allege that while the conspiracy began in at least 2012, it has continued to the present day.

“They offer no authority under which this Court could dismiss as facially time-barred an indictment that explicitly alleges a RICO conspiracy that has continued into the present,” prosecutors wrote in their reply to defense briefs.

Prosecutors also stated that defense attorneys misunderstand what their clients are being accused of.

“Defendants are not alleged to have asked municipal entities to take these actions, but rather to have directly and corruptly caused or plotted to cause those public entities to do so,” prosecutors wrote.

They further allege that the Norcross enterprise carried out George Norcross’ threat that Dranoff “‘would never do business in this town again’ and would suffer ‘enormous consequences.’”

“It evidences Norcross’s ability to follow through on his threats, and reinforces the meaning of those threats — up to and including invoking the Government’s unique and extraordinary authority to take private property for (properly) public purposes,” prosecutors wrote.