New Jersey Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Racketeering Charges Against George Norcross and Five Others
A New Jersey appeals court has upheld the dismissal of racketeering charges against powerful Democrat George E. Norcross III and five others, ruling that prosecutors failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.
The decision comes after a Mercer County Superior Court judge last February dismissed the indictment, citing lack of evidence and procedural errors. The three-judge panel with the state's appellate division affirmed the lower court's decision on Friday, rejecting claims by former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin that key evidence was withheld from the jury.
Norcross, an insurance executive and prominent Democratic powerbroker in the state, pleaded not guilty to the charges two years ago. His attorneys argued that the prosecution's case relied too heavily on hearsay and lacked concrete proof of wrongdoing. The other five defendants include Norcross's brother Philip Norcross, Dana Redd, Bill Tambussi, John O'Donnell, and Sidney Brown.
Prosecutors alleged that Norcross and his associates used intimidation tactics to secure lucrative waterfront projects in Camden, including a $3 billion hospital expansion project at Cooper University Health Care. One example cited was a wiretapped conversation between Norcross and rival developer Carl Dranoff, in which Norcross allegedly threatened Dranoff if he did not relinquish his rights to the property.
However, the appeals court found that the prosecution's case relied on flawed assumptions about the statute of limitations for the charges. The panel questioned whether tax benefits reaped by Norcross and his allies extended the time frame beyond which they could be prosecuted.
The decision is a significant blow to prosecutors, who had sought to reinstate the charges and demonstrate accountability among New Jersey's influential elite. Acting Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, awaiting Senate confirmation, has announced that her office is reviewing the appellate division's decision.
A New Jersey appeals court has upheld the dismissal of racketeering charges against powerful Democrat George E. Norcross III and five others, ruling that prosecutors failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.
The decision comes after a Mercer County Superior Court judge last February dismissed the indictment, citing lack of evidence and procedural errors. The three-judge panel with the state's appellate division affirmed the lower court's decision on Friday, rejecting claims by former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin that key evidence was withheld from the jury.
Norcross, an insurance executive and prominent Democratic powerbroker in the state, pleaded not guilty to the charges two years ago. His attorneys argued that the prosecution's case relied too heavily on hearsay and lacked concrete proof of wrongdoing. The other five defendants include Norcross's brother Philip Norcross, Dana Redd, Bill Tambussi, John O'Donnell, and Sidney Brown.
Prosecutors alleged that Norcross and his associates used intimidation tactics to secure lucrative waterfront projects in Camden, including a $3 billion hospital expansion project at Cooper University Health Care. One example cited was a wiretapped conversation between Norcross and rival developer Carl Dranoff, in which Norcross allegedly threatened Dranoff if he did not relinquish his rights to the property.
However, the appeals court found that the prosecution's case relied on flawed assumptions about the statute of limitations for the charges. The panel questioned whether tax benefits reaped by Norcross and his allies extended the time frame beyond which they could be prosecuted.
The decision is a significant blow to prosecutors, who had sought to reinstate the charges and demonstrate accountability among New Jersey's influential elite. Acting Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, awaiting Senate confirmation, has announced that her office is reviewing the appellate division's decision.
this whole thing smells fishy to me - sounds like they were trying to make an example out of him and his pals 
newsflash: you can't just charge someone with racketeering because you didn't like what they did... that's not how the system works, folks 
so like the court basically said there wasn't enough evidence to prove Norcross did anything wrong? but it seems pretty shady that he and his friends allegedly used intimidation tactics to get rich off some waterfront project 
and now the prosecutors are just going to let them slide because of some technicality about the statute of limitations? isn't that kinda weird? 
. Still, it's good to see the courts holding people accountable (mostly) in Jersey 
. Can't wait to see what happens next! 
. You've got Democrats defending their own, and Republicans trying to use this as proof of corruption. It's like they're playing politics with people's lives 
.
I don't get why they're not taking this guy Norcross seriously at all. He's got a ton of influence and connections, but that doesn't mean he's above the law, right? It feels like he's been let off with a slap on the wrist here... 
. Norcross and his crew are super powerful in Jersey politics - it feels like they got a free pass because of who they know 
. And now the state's appeals court is saying that the prosecution just didn't have enough evidence to take 'em down? Come on, man! It doesn't look good for accountability 
Like, what even was the case for the prosecution? 
They had one conversation between Norcross and Carl Dranoff, and that's it? I mean, can you imagine if they tried to build an entire case on something like that? 
It's no wonder they failed. And now, we're left with a bunch of powerful folks getting off scot-free. 
. I'm curious to see how Acting AG Davenport will review the decision - hopes she'll use this as an opportunity to improve their investigation methods 
. It seems like they're saying that even if Norcross did make some threatening calls, it's not enough to convict him and his friends 
I mean, who needs concrete proof when you've got a powerful Democrat on the hook? 
The appeals court said it all about flawed assumptions and statute of limitations... basically saying Norcross had too much time in the "clearance" zone. 
It's like they're letting him get away with murder... or at least, waterfront real estate empire-building 
The appeals court ruling is kinda weird though - I mean, shouldn't prosecutors be able to prove their case better than that? 
Can't believe these guys got off scot-free... like it wasn't clear from the start that they were fishing for a fix. 
like, who tries to bribe someone with waterfront views and thinks it's gonna fly? George Norcross and his crew must've thought they were above the law... or at least, thought they could buy their way out of trouble 
IT'S LIKE THEY THINK THEY'RE ABOVE THE LAW OR SOMETHING?!?!? NEWSFLASH: WE'RE ALL HUMAN AND WE ALL NEED TO FOLLOW THE RULES!!!! 
IT'S ABOUT TIME SOMEONE STARTED HOLDING THESE ELITES ACCOUNTABLE!!!! 