Judge hears Norcross’ motion to dismiss, stays mum on timeline

Attorneys argued for nearly eight hours on Wednesday over whether to dismiss a series of racketeering and extortion charges against Democratic powerbroker George Norcross and several of his allies, but the judge left the courtroom without indicating when or how he might rule.

Attorneys for the defendants argued Wednesday the blockbuster June indictment fails on two main counts: First, even if every accusation listed in the indictment was true, the behavior of Norcross and his co-defendants did not actually amount to a crime. Second, the attorneys argued the alleged conspiracy, which prosecutors say started in the mid-2010s, fell outside the statute of limitations and should no longer be subject to prosecution.

Prosecutors, led Wednesday by Assistant Attorney General Michael Grillo, argued Norcross and his allies teamed up to secure lucrative property and tax credits, and that the group used threats of economic and reputational harm to strong-arm their victims. Grillo said the behavior went beyond typical business negotiations. He said that because some benefits and transactions stemming from the alleged conspiracy continue to this day, the charges fall well within the statute of limitations.

Attorney General Matt Platkin sent shockwaves through the state in June when his office charged Norcross, a longtime South Jersey powerbroker, in a 13-count indictment. The indictment accuses the group of extorting developer Carl Dranoff to obtain valuable Camden waterfront property at a cheap price while also pushing legislation to create extensive tax breaks.

Also charged in the indictment were Norcross’ brother, Philip Norcross, who runs the politically potent Parker McCay law firm; Dana Redd, a former state senator and Camden mayor; and Norcross’ longtime attorney, Bill Tambussi. John O’Donnell, the president of a real estate developer with ties to Norcross, and Sidney Brown, the CEO of NFI, a trucking company, were also indicted.

Wednesday’s daylong hearing focused on a September motion to dismiss the case from Norcross’ attorneys. Superior Court Judge Peter E. Warshaw Jr. maintained control of the courtroom throughout the long hearing and left without signaling a timeline for his ruling on the case.

The six defendants each possessed their own attorneys—about two dozen attorneys were in attendance, not including others watching. All six defendants watched from the gallery throughout the day.

Prosecutors called the defense’s motion to dismiss the charges “highly irregular.” Grillo said the motion should come at a later stage after further fact-finding and evidence collection. The defense argued that further evidence would not change the fact that they believe no actual crime was detailed in the indictment.

Each defense attorney took turns throughout the day to argue that the indictment did not actually accuse their client of a crime under the law.

Norcross’ attorney, for example, said minor threats don’t necessarily violate the law and instead constitute typical, tough negotiating tactics. Yaakov Roth, the attorney, said it would be legal for him to threaten to withhold donations from his synagogue should he want the institution to make a certain leadership decision. He said a similar idea exists in Norcross’ case, that the powerbroker’s alleged threat that ​​Dranoff could be shut out of future Camden business deals is legal.

“Under proper interpretation of the extortion statutes and a few principles of constitutional law, the episodes that the indictment set forth are not violations, and that’s assuming the facts as alleged are true,” said Roth, the Fay Diploma-winning Harvard Law graduate who defended former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The prosecutor rejected the argument, saying Norcross threatened Dranoff’s other Camden business prospects—Grillo said Norcross didn’t simply play hardball in one transaction but instead threatened financial ruin.

“Mr. Dranoff also has a right to conduct his business free of threats to those unrelated projects,” Grillo said. “And he has a right to rely on a level playing field whenever he petitions the government for its assistance.”

Roth argued Norcross’ Camden comment was more a warning about societal anger than a threat of guaranteed retribution. The attorney said if the deal didn’t go through, Dranoff could be seen as not being helpful in the revitalization of Camden, which would hurt his standing in the community.

Because this early motion simply challenged the legality of the indictment, both sides operated under the assumption that the indictment was accurate on Wednesday. Should the case continue, the defense will have the chance to challenge the facts of the case at a later stage.

Similarly, Tambussi’s attorney said he was not accused of anything illegal in the indictment. Lee Vartan, who is representing the longtime Norcross attorney, said Tambussi was only listed in the indictment for doing “regular and routine” legal work.

Warshaw pressed prosecutors to explain, in simple terms, what Tambussi was charged with. Grillo said the group considered trying to condemn Dranoff’s property so the city could seize it, and that Tambussi’s “agreement to participate” in the conspiracy warranted the charge (the condemnation plan never came to fruition). Grillo also accused Tambussi of using legal action to conceal the alleged conspiracy.

“You cited one instance of actual legal work and one contemplated legal action that didn’t go,” Warshaw said to the prosecutor. “Is that what it is?”

“It’s the agreement to participate that’s the sufficient act to charge him,” Grillo told the judge.

The case, including the charges against Tambussi, has received attention from outside groups. Robert Scrivo represented the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey in court Wednesday to argue the charges against Tambussi could chill the “zealous advocacy” that clients deserve from their attorneys.

Robert Levy also intervened in favor of the defense on behalf of the New Jersey NAACP State Conference, New Jersey State AFL-CIO, and the New Jersey Building and Construction Trades Council.

Henry Klingeman, who represents former Camden Mayor Dana Redd, went through the indictment with the judge and listed every mention of his client—after going through each paragraph, he argued that not a single one actually constituted official misconduct or any other of the crimes Redd was charged with.

“This is a prosecution in search of a crime,” Klingeman said.

By the end of the hearing, Grillo acknowledged he sounded at times like a broken record—he said Redd, like the others, violated the law with her alleged agreement to join Norcross’ criminal enterprise.

“Those arguments seem to all be predicated on isolating specific pieces of conduct, taking them out of the totality of circumstances,” Grillo said. “… It was an agreement to allow a criminal enterprise the use of the power of the mayor’s office, the city of Camden, for the criminal objectives of that enterprise and for specific criminal purposes.”