Trial lawyers back up Norcross in appeal of dismissal

Saying the state’s prosecution of Democratic powerbroker George E. Norcross III represents a dangerous assault on zealous lawyering and constitutionally protected legal conduct, the New Jersey State Committee of the American College of Trial Lawyers has filed an amicus brief asking the appellate division to uphold the dismissal of criminal charges against two attorneys who were Norcross’ co-defendants.

Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw dismissed a racketeering indictment in February, and the New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin is appealing the ruling.

“If the Attorney General could transform routine lawyering into criminal charges with no notice, effectively on a whim, because the lawyer’s client or the lawyer’s brother is out of favor with the prosecutor, then the rule of law will suffer for the same reasons Attorney General Platkin has voiced regarding the recent executive orders signed by President Trump,” the brief noted.

In a social media post in March, Platkin said that “targeting lawyers for doing their jobs is illegal, dangerous, and a grave threat to the rule of law.”

The brief by the trial lawyers said the state indictment “chills zealous advocacy.”

“Zealous advocacy is not merely an ingredient of effective lawyering; it is the embodiment of effective lawyering,” the group stated.  “Lawyers are taught to represent their clients with empathy and passion, crucial qualities that create trust between the client and the attorney.”

They say the state’s prosecution of William Tambussi “seeks to criminalize legal research, advice, and motion practice, and that with Philip Norcross, “it seeks to criminalize his lobbying activities on behalf of a client.”

“These are core lawyering activities,” the trial lawyers argue.

The trial lawyers criticized prosecutorial overreach, emphasizing that the role of a prosecutor is to ensure justice, not just to secure convictions.   They cite a court rule that prosecutors must act as ministers of justice and seek judicial intervention.

“This case presents the Court with a vital opportunity to speak against allowing the machinery of the attorney general’s office to be wielded against the routine practice of law,” the trial lawyers state.  ““Prosecutors must occasionally be reminded that their subjective advocacy objectives do not always equate with the effective, fair and impartial administration of justice. This case presents the opportunity for the Court to issue such a reminder.”

Warshaw found that the indictment’s “factual allegations do not constitute extortion or criminal coercion as a matter of law” and found “there was no racketeering enterprise.”  He determined that Redd “did not commit any act of official misconduct,” And that all charges were outside the statute of limitations.

“It follows that if the facts alleged do not, as a matter of law, constitute a crime, the indictment is manifestly deficient and facially and palpably defective,” Warshaw wrote in his decision.   “The indictment must be dismissed because its factual allegations do not constitute extortion or criminal coercion as a matter of law.”