Attorneys for Democratic powerbroker George E. Norcross III and others today filed a motion to dismiss a 13-count indictment for making unlawful threats and official misconduct that they are calling “legally flawed.”
“The indictment palpably fails to state an offense. Because there is no crime alleged here, it is this court’s role to dismiss the Indictment, which it can and should do with confidence in the outcome,” said Norcross’s lawyer, Michael Critchley, and attorneys representing the other defendants. “The rule of law demands it—because of, not merely in spite of, the high-profile nature of this novel prosecution.”
The court filing alleges that the Attorney General’s 111-page indictment “reads less like a legal document and more like a screenplay for a putative summer blockbuster.”
“Except the script is missing some critical plot lines. This is supposedly a story of extortion—but there’s no violence or unlawful threats; only ordinary economic bargaining among sophisticated businessmen. It is pitched as a tale of official misconduct—but there are no bribes, kickbacks, or even conflicts of interest; only routine politics,” the filing seeking a dismissal stated. “We are promised racketeering—but no organized criminal elements ever appear; only respected, proven civic leaders and lawyers trying to revive a long-suffering city. Plus, the storyline is stale, with nothing of consequence happening in almost a decade. No wonder other studios—including U.S. Attorney’s Offices in New Jersey and Philadelphia—chose to pass on this story years ago, even when it was fresher. Simply put, this is a crime thriller with no crime.”
Critchley said the alleged are “nothing more than everyday, hardball business negotiations. New Jersey courts, and courts around the country, have consistently and explicitly held that these types of alleged exchanges between sophisticated, legally represented, private parties negotiating business deals, may occur in a free economy.
“More importantly, they are not covered by the relevant statutes and therefore are not unlawful, he said.
Critchley also says that almost all of the allegations in the indictment took place more than ten years ago and that the indictment is “plainly barred by the statute of limitations.”
“While the State tries to evade the limitations periods by alleging that some defendants received tax credits more recently, there is no allegation the credits were fraudulent, and the State of New Jersey and the Attorney General’s office as Counsel to the Economic Development Authority, has repeatedly awarded some of the defendants tax credits after review and certification,” stated Critchley. “An offense does not become an unending conspiracy merely because a piece of property generates lawful income into the future.”
In a letter to Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw, Critchley said defense attorneys have strong grounds to contest facts alleged in the indictment and to object to the manner in which this case was presented to the grand jury.”
But he noted that the legal team is not addressing those issues in today’s motion.
“We have limited this motion to an attack on the facial insufficiency of the indictment,” Critchley said. “It argues that, assuming the truth of every fact alleged in the Indictment and all the reasonable inferences to be drawn from those facts, the charging document does not state a crime by any defendant and should therefore be dismissed as a matter of law, without the need to address the defectiveness of the grand jury presentation.”
The other charges against Norcross and others — possession of proceeds from alleged criminal activity, use of a corporate entity to engage in criminal activity, conspiracy to commit criminal activity, and engaging in a pattern to commit criminal activity – are considered “derivative claims,” Critchley explained, say thing that they depend on the New Jersey Attorney General’s office establishing unlawful threat and official misconduct claims.
“Since the indictment fails to establish that the alleged threats or official misconduct are criminal, the remaining counts are legally invalid and must be dismissed as well,” Critchley stated.
In the indictment of former Camden Mayor Dana Redd, Critchley said official misconduct charges fail to identify “a single, specified legal duty:” that she violated.
“All of Ms. Redd’s conduct was well within the discretion of an elected official. It follows that if Mayor Redd did nothing to betray the public trust, then no other defendant could have conspired with her or compelled unlawful conduct,” said Critchley.
Joining Critchley on the brief is a Washington-based attorney, Yaakov Roth of Jones Day. Roth has had considerable success in challenging indictments and convictions in corruption matters, including former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and Bridgegate defendant Bridget Anne Kelly.
“Whatever its merit for the silver screen, this Indictment has no business in a court of law. It is both too trite and too generous to call it an indictment in search of a crime. This Indictment gives up before starting the hunt. It spends over 200 paragraphs telling a tendentious story, but then uses only conclusory boilerplate language to describe the 13 alleged crimes, never even attempting to identify how their elements match up to the (lengthy) narrative that precedes them. That is not an accident. Any effort to charge the elements with specificity would only have exposed their absence and revealed the Indictment as fatally flawed,” the lawers said in their filing. “Although the Indictment exceeds 100 pages and asserts over a dozen counts, it still fails to properly allege a single crime.”
Warshaw has set a hearing date of January 22 to consider arguments to dismiss the charges. Supplemental filings from five other defendants are due on October 1. The state’s response is due Thanksgiving week, and attorneys for the defendants must respond by December 20. That gives Warshaw a month to review the briefs before the hearing.
Sharon Lauchiere, a spokesperson for the attorney general’s office, said the motion was expected.
“The defendants previously advised the court and the parties they intended to make this motion to dismiss based on claimed legal deficiencies in the case as charged,” she said. “Defense motions to dismiss on these grounds are common. We are confident in our charges and look forward to responding in our briefs to the court.”