In a shocking turn of events that may reshape New Jersey’s political landscape, a judge has dismissed all racketeering charges against powerful Democratic leader George Norcross.
Is this another example of connected Democrats escaping accountability, or was the case against him fatally flawed from the start?
At a Glance
- Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw dismissed racketeering charges against Democratic power broker George Norcross and co-defendants
- Charges involved allegations of strong-arming political and business leaders for Camden waterfront property rights
- Judge ruled the indictment’s allegations did not constitute extortion or criminal coercion
- New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat, plans to appeal the decision
- Norcross is a major Democratic Party figure and financial backer in New Jersey politics
Democrat Power Broker Cleared of Charges
A New Jersey judge has dismissed racketeering charges against Democratic power broker George Norcross and his co-defendants in a decision that raises questions about the original investigation. The charges centered around allegations that Norcross and his associates strong-armed political and business leaders to secure property rights on the Camden waterfront. Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw ruled that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the influential Democrat and his allies.
The dismissal benefits not only Norcross but also his brother Philip A. Norcross, lawyer William M. Tambussi, former Camden Mayor Dana L. Redd, NFI CEO Sidney R. Brown, and development executive John J. O’Donnell. All had previously pleaded not guilty to charges that alleged they formed a criminal enterprise to extort rivals and manipulate state tax credits for personal gain. The case’s collapse represents a significant victory for the Norcross political machine in New Jersey.
In his ruling, Judge Warshaw determined that prosecutors failed to establish the existence of a criminal racketeering enterprise as alleged in the indictment. The judge also concluded that Norcross’s alleged threats against developers, which formed a central part of the case, did not meet the legal threshold for criminal behavior. This finding suggests serious deficiencies in how the case was constructed by Democratic Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s office.
“The indictment must be dismissed because its factual allegations do not constitute extortion or criminal coercion as a matter of law,” Judge Peter Warshaw said.
The judge further explained that in the business world, economic pressure tactics don’t necessarily qualify as criminal behavior.
“Defendants correctly argue that when considering private parties negotiating economic deals in a free market system, threats are sometimes neither wrongful or unlawful. In these situations, there may be nothing inherently wrong in using economic fear to obtain property,” the judge said.
Attorney General Vows to Continue Fight
Despite the clear rebuke from the court, New Jersey’s Democratic Attorney General Matthew Platkin has announced plans to appeal the decision.
“After years in which the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently cut back on federal public corruption law, and at a time in which the federal government is refusing to tackle corruption, it has never been more important for state officials to take corruption head on. But I have never promised that these cases would be easy, because too many have come to view corruption as simply the way the powerful do business in New Jersey,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said.
Notably, previous investigations into the Camden waterfront development by multiple agencies did not result in charges against Norcross.
The dismissal represents a significant victory for Norcross, who has long been a kingmaker in New Jersey Democratic politics.
But was this the right decision?
