Attorneys for South Jersey power broker George Norcross celebrate dismissal of charges

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 Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw dismissed all racketeering charges against South Jersey Democratic power broker George E. Norcross III on Wednesday. The order extends to his co-defendants, younger brother Philip Norcross, former Camden Mayor Dana L. Redd, logistics executive Sidney R. Brown, attorney William M. Tambussi and developer John O’Donnell.

Attorney General Matt Platkin said in a statement prosecutors “disagree strongly” with Warshaw’s decision.

“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,” Platkin said in a statement. “Today is a reminder of how much work remains, and how difficult it will be to clean up government in our state.”

The judge’s decision was not a shock for Ronsha A. Dickerson, a community activist in Camden who is co-founder of the Camden Parent Union and chair of the Camden We Chose coalition.

“Hopefully, the spotlighting and exposure of this corruption and collusion will jolt people into action, or at least to have a better understanding how deep the tentacles of political greed will go in Camden,” she said.

Antoinette Miles, state director of the New Jersey Working Families Party, an organization that worked with activists in the City of Camden, said the ruling “makes a mockery of the justice system and exposes how there are two sets of rules in New Jersey: one that protects the wealthy and well-connected, and another that punishes ordinary people.”

But, Michael Critchley, the lead defense attorney for the co-defendants, said the judge “obliterated” the state’s allegations in what he called “a sham political indictment,”. He said U.S. Attorneys in Pennsylvania and New Jersey looked at the allegations and found no basis for criminal charges.

“Some reason, somehow, sanctimonious Matt Platkin felt it was in his preserve to overrule the investigations by two federal authorities and mount his own political sham investigation attempting to destroy the livelihood, the reputation and lives of law abiding citizens,” Critchley said.

Kevin A. Marino, attorney for Philip Norcross, said Platkin would “have to contend with 96 pages of bullet proof findings that are based entirely on the statutes themselves.”

During a one-hour press conference, defense attorneys took turns praising Judge Warshaw’s decision, while painting Platkin as an inexperienced lawyer positioning himself for elected office.

“He really is someone who came into this office with, not little experience, he had no experience and his lack of experience matches his lack of judgment,” Critchley said. “I don’t know if he’s going to run for office anymore. I think today put a little bit of a roadblock in his political career.”

Critchley said they have not ruled out bringing a civil suit against Platkin for bringing charges against their clients.

“Everything is on the table,” he said. “Just because [public officials are] sovereigns that doesn’t mean they’re not held accountable for things.”

Last June, a grand jury handed a 13-count indictment, accusing Norcross and his associates of using threats and intimidation to usurp Camden’s waterfront properties.

Norcross’ lawyers argued last month that their client having access to Camden city leaders does not constitute a crime. Warshaw’s ruling is a setback for prosecutors.

Judge Warshaw: Allegations do not constitute a crime

Warshaw agreed with the defense attorneys’ argument that George Norcross and developer Carl Dranoff, aka “developer-1,” were engaged in high stakes negotiations over the view easement Dranoff owns for his Victor Lofts property.

“Clearly, this is a steel cage crawl between two heavyweights, both accompanied at times by at least one lawyer,” Warshaw said. “Neither seems to like or trust each other. Each is trying to prevail in the negotiations and there is substantial money at stake.”

Prosecutors alleged that when negotiations between the two became intense, Norcross used profanities and threatened Dranoff saying, “I’ll make sure you never do business in this town again.”

“Developer-1 handles himself able and gives as good as he gets,” Warshaw said, adding that “this sabre-rattling sounds much like ‘this town ain’t big enough for the two of us.’”

Was there a Norcross racketeering enterprise?

In his ruling, Warshaw questioned the existence of a racketeering enterprise.

The judge dealt with each co-defendant individually. Of Brown and O’Donnell, he said “no logical reading of the indictment establishes any basis to believe that either man was the member of a criminal enterprise.”

“Two sophisticated businessmen backed the right horse when it came to selecting an investment partner,” the judge said.

Warshaw said Tambussi “represented clients. He was not a business partner of any co-defendant. He did not own any piece of the Camden waterfront. He did not and does not collect any tax credits.”

He said Philip Norcross had personal and professional interest in the Camden waterfront.

“Philip Norcross had the right to craft proposed [Economic Opportunity Act] legislation and communicate with the Senate President and anyone else who would listen to him,” the judge wrote.

In regards to Redd, Warshaw said she did not commit any act of official misconduct.

“Certainly, a mayor has the right to consult citizens’ groups which include powerful, unpopular people in public policy discussions as critical as the redevelopment of a blighted city,” the judge said. “A mayor has the right to decide which phone calls she returns.”

The charges in the Norcross case are barred because time ran out

Warshaw discussed the statute of limitations in his reasoning. For example, charges must be brought by the prosecutor, generally, within five years after it was committed. Prosecution for official misconduct charges must be brought within seven years.

Prosecutors argued that because of the ongoing racketeering conspiracy, the charges were filed in a timely manner. But Warshaw sided with defense attorneys in that the allegations occurred before 2019, outside of the timeline.

“Even if all alleged facts are accepted as true, all charges are time barred,” the judge said.

This is a developing story.