Copyright The Philadelphia Inquirer
New Jersey prosecutors on Wednesday asked a state appellate court to revive a criminal racketeering case against Democratic power broker George E. Norcross III, saying a judge’s decision earlier this year to dismiss their indictment was both legally flawed and premature. During oral argument before the Superior Court’s Appellate Division, Deputy Solicitor General Michael Zuckerman told the three-judge panel that Mercer County Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw’s decision in February to throw out the case was done before Warshaw had reviewed thousands of pages of grand jury evidence supporting the indictment. In addition, Zuckerman said, Warshaw drew his own conclusions about whether the allegations in the indictment were violations of the law — questions Zuckerman said were more properly suited for later stages of the prosecution, or, ultimately, a trial jury. “It is an error that justifies reversal of the entire decision,” Zuckerman said. Attorneys for Norcross, however, said Warshaw’s decision was correct. They said prosecutors had not even attempted to articulate a crime in their indictment — which centers on Norcross’ efforts to redevelop Camden’s waterfront — and instead had sought to criminalize the type of hard-knuckle negotiating tactics that developers and businesspeople engage in every day. Prosecutors did not accuse Norcross or any of his codefendants of threatening to take any illegal action, Norcross’ attorneys said — such as by threatening to physically harm their adversaries, or by promising to bribe a public official to handicap a business rival’s project. Instead, said Norcross’ attorney Anthony J. Dick, prosecutors accused Norcross of using tough language as he sought to secure favorable terms in a real estate negotiation. “If that’s all there is, that’s not a crime,” Dick said. “And if there’s something more, they need to say that in the indictment.” The arguments served as the latest chapter in the high-profile criminal case targeting some of South Jersey’s most powerful political players. The 13-count indictment filed last year against Norcross and five codefendants accused them of using threats of financial and reputational harm to obtain Camden waterfront property and then secure millions of dollars in state tax credits. Norcross, 69, is a longtime Democratic leader in South Jersey, as well as founder of the insurance brokerage Conner Strong & Buckelew and chairman of Cooper University Health Care. His codefendants are his brother Philip, CEO of the law firm Parker McCay; attorney William Tambussi; former Camden Mayor Dana L. Redd; and two businessmen, John J. O’Donnell and Sidney R. Brown. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s office filed charges in the case last June, accusing the group of using its considerable political clout — and a series of brutish threats — to muscle out rivals seeking to buy properties along Camden’s waterfront, then hijack a 2013 New Jersey tax credit program to secure monetary benefits. Platkin called it an example of how “a group of unelected, private businessmen used their power and influence to get government to aid their criminal enterprise.” In the indictment, prosecutors accused Norcross in 2016 of telling Philadelphia developer Carl Dranoff, among other things, he would “f— you up like you’ve never been f— up before” if Dranoff didn’t agree to Norcross’ preferred terms in a real estate transaction. Norcross’ attorneys had long argued that such language, as well as other threats prosecutors accused Norcross of doling out, were nothing more than “hardball business negotiations,” describing the indictment as “a crime thriller with no crime.” Earlier this year, Warshaw, the judge, effectively agreed, writing in court documents that the threats may have been “saber-rattling” amid a “steel cage brawl” but that he did not believe the actions amounted to a crime. “The indictment must be dismissed because its factual allegations do not constitute extortion or criminal coercion as a matter of law,” Warshaw wrote. Prosecutors appealed his decision, saying in part that such an interpretation was not his to make so early in the process — particularly because he had not reviewed thousands of pages of grand jury testimony and evidence. They also said Norcross’ threats were far more than acts of tough bargaining, particularly given his influence and proximity to powerful figures across Camden’s government. “A developer similarly situated under the circumstances would’ve understood that to mean what the grand jury found it to mean,” Zuckerman, of the AG’s Office, said in court Wednesday. It was not immediately clear Wednesday when the appellate court might issue its ruling in the matter. Depending on what the judges decide, it’s possible that their ruling could ultimately be appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
