A Prediction: George Norcross Will Defeat Corruption Charges | Moran

George Norcross, the naked South Jersey boss, is the most hated man in the New Jersey political world. He’s a tyrant, he’s the iron hand behind the machine system everyone hates these days, and his escapist tirades are as legendary as his arrogance.

But none of that makes him a criminal. And after his legal team filed a motion Tuesday to dismiss pending corruption charges against Norcross, I interviewed eight of the state’s top lawyers, all with extensive experience in criminal cases and some with experience fighting Norcross.

All but one told me that the case against Norcross was weak. They point out that federal prosecutors – the undisputed frontrunners in political corruption cases – declined to press charges against Norcross, even though they had wiretapped him during the period in question, so they had much of the same evidence. If the case against Norcross is strong, why would the government have decided to leave the matter to the state?

And they point to weak support for the core charge against Norcross that he engaged in extortion when he bullied a business rival on the Camden waterfront, developer Carl Dranoff, and flexed his political muscle to gain the upper hand .

“This is not a clear-cut case of extortion where someone says, ‘I’ll kill your wife if you don’t do this,'” said a former prosecutor who handled major corruption cases at the state and federal levels and is not part of the Norcross team . “That’s a bit far-fetched.”

For the record, here is the worst thing Norcross, according to the prosecution, said to Dranoff, who was preventing Norcross from developing parts of Camden’s waterfront: “If you… screw this up, I’ll… screw you like I was.” never full. I will make sure you never do business in this town again.”

As I said, the man lacks charm. But this is a fight between two rich developers and the threat is vague. They ended up making a deal that gave Dranoff $2.5 million months after that clash. That wasn’t exactly Tony Soprano stuff.

The definition of fraud involves more subtle tactics, so this is not a sure thing. The only attorney I spoke to who found the case compelling pointed to language in the racketeering statute that states, “To take or withhold action as a public officer or to cause a public official to take or withhold action,” that is so a broad statement. This is not an exact science.

The lawyers I spoke to did not want to be named, and I respect that. Who wants to make an enemy of the Attorney General or Norcross? But they are all top lawyers that I know and trust, and only one said these allegations were strong. Two of the eight are members of the defense team, none of whom I quote here. What stood out most to me were two people who have clashed with Norcross and clearly don’t like him, but who still think the allegations are weak.

“As far as I know, this is not extortion,” one of them said. “It seems to be the kind of crude rhetoric that occurs all the time… I have read through the motion to dismiss and have to admit that the argument has some resonance.”

The case against Dana Redd, the former mayor of Camden and a Norcross ally, is even weaker, several lawyers said. She is accused of official misconduct after she threatened to take market-rate property away from Dranoff using eminent domain to pave the way for Norcross to develop the disputed waterfront property. The indictment says she also refused to return Dranoff’s calls because she was involved in the conspiracy with Norcross and, years later, got a cushy job through connections to Norcross.

But several attorneys said threats to eminent domain are common, and Redd can argue she did it to remove a barrier to waterfront development in her city. And if refusing to answer calls is a crime, we need to build more prisons.

The motion to dismiss also argues that the statute of limitations has expired and that most of the acts described therein, including the headbanging between Norcross and Dranoff, occurred too long ago. The indictment argues that the conspiracy itself continues because the fruits of that conspiracy continue to flow, including tax breaks for Norcross companies and a patronage job for Mayor Redd. Lawyers disagreed on this, but if Norcross and his co-defendants win that argument, the rest is moot.

One wild card that could help Norcross is the problematic track record of the state team handling this prosecution. Attorney General Matt Platkin came into office with virtually no law enforcement experience and handed this case over to his Office of Public Integrity and Accountability, OPIA, a troubled organization that has botched some big cases recently.

In July, a judge dismissed charges against a Lakewood rabbi accused of laundering $200,000 in public funds after finding that OPIA had withheld evidence and pointing out that OPIA’s own detective was testifying that in his opinion there was no crime. It turned out to be an accounting error. Two days earlier, the trial of a Paterson police officer in a controversial shooting collapsed after OPIA admitted it failed to report to the grand jury a photo of the shooting victim holding a gun.

Meanwhile, Norcross uses his personal fortune to hire a fleet of the state’s best lawyers, led by Michael Critchley, widely considered one of the best. That could also make a difference.

One final thought on Norcross: He did a fantastic job at Camden. The city is still struggling, but he has spearheaded every civic effort for the past 20 years. Yes, he uses his machine to enrich himself and his allies, but that’s not the end. The schools have improved tremendously, as have the police force, both a direct result of his efforts. As chairman of Cooper Health System, he has made major advances in cancer treatment and is the city’s largest employer.

This is all irrelevant to the criminal process. But I’m impressed that many of his political enemies can’t accept that at the same time he’s done this good work, that he’s a villain in some ways and a hero in others. The state is full of political machines that cannot keep up with its good works.

It may be difficult for Norcross to win dismissal of these charges. The legal hurdle is high – his team must prove that no jury could reasonably vote to convict, even if all of the allegations in the indictment were true. The attorneys I spoke with disagreed on whether Norcross can clear this hold.

But at trial, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the facts in this extensive indictment and show beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegations are justified. That’s also a high bar. I suspect that in the end no jury will vote to convict.

More: Columns by Tom Moran

Tom Moran can be reached at [email protected] or (973) 986-6951. Follow him on Twitter @tomamoran. Find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.

bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.