A New Jersey appellate panel on Wednesday appeared skeptical that the sprawling racketeering indictment against Garden State businessman George E. Norcross was improperly dismissed, asking the state in its bid to revive the case how the power broker's alleged threats outlined in its 111-page indictment were unlawful.

The three-judge panel asked state prosecutors several times during oral argument on its appeal of the indictment's February dismissal to outline what unlawful acts Norcross and his co-defendants, including his brother and Parker McCay shareholder Philip Norcross and Brown & Connery LLP partner William Tambussi, threatened to carry out against their alleged victims.

"To me, the common denominator running through all of the arguments is that you never allege the unlawful manner in which they threatened to proceed or were willing to do," Appellate Judge Ellen Torregrossa-O'Connor said. "It sounds like that's the core element that was not pledged."

The state doesn't have to say the exact meaning behind the alleged threat, said Michael Zuckerman of the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Rather, the state only has to allege that the threats were said and the victims took them as threats.

When Norcross allegedly told a rival developer that he would never do business in the city of Camden again, "the unsaid thing is you're never going to, because I'm going to use the government against you. That is unlawful," Zuckerman said.

Zuckerman argued that the grand jury — with the full context of the state's presentation of the case — took the threats allegedly made by Norcross to mean that Norcross and his associates were going to cause an official to take or withhold action.

"Isn't that just tracking the statutory language?" Appellate Judge Lisa Rose asked.

But that's the actus reus and mens rea that is being alleged, Zuckerman said, using the Latin terms for act and intent.

"Those are things that the jury would have to find for them to be guilty, but they're not legal conclusions," Zuckerman said, adding that the grand jury found there was probable cause that Norcross and his co-defendants meant that the consequences of their threats were going to be reputational and governmental harm.

Counsel for Norcross, Anthony Dick of Jones Day, maintained that the indictment — even accepting all the facts as alleged as true — failed to allege a crime by his client or any other defendants.

Threats that are connected to business transactions, such as the ones alleged in the state's indictment, are lawful under the 1996 New Jersey Appellate Division case State v. Roth , Dick argued.

"When you're in a commercial business negotiation, as long as the threats you're making — you're not threatening violence, you're not threatening anything unlawful, as long as the threats you're making are germane and have a nexus to the commercial transaction that's at stake, they are perfectly lawful," Dick said. "They are economic coercion incident to hard bargaining."

The appeal stems from a sweeping indictment issued by a state grand jury in 2024, accusing Norcross and several associates of orchestrating a yearslong scheme to misuse tax incentives and political influence for private gain.

Superior Court Judge Peter E. Warshaw in February dismissed the case against Norcross, his brother, Tambussi and their co-defendants, ruling that the state's factual allegations do not constitute extortion or criminal coercion as a matter of law.

The judge also dismissed the state's charges against former Camden Mayor Dana Redd; John J. O'Donnell, the former CEO of The Michaels Organization development company; and Sidney R. Brown, the CEO of logistics firm NFI.

The state's main argument on appeal is that the trial court improperly dismissed the racketeering, conspiracy and official misconduct case without even reviewing the grand jury evidence.

The New Jersey State Bar Association, the New Jersey State Committee of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers backed Philip Norcross and Tambussi's argument. The organizations over the summer filed amicus briefs asserting that lawyers across the state will be chilled from zealously advocating for their clients if the appellate court revives the state's racketeering indictment.

The organizations told the court it should require the state to prove that an attorney engaged in a conscious effort to further a criminal enterprise when charging an attorney in connection with their representation of a client. They further argued that the state's indictment seeks to criminalize "core lawyering activities" — Tambussi's legal research, advice, and motion practice, and Philip Norcross' lobbying activities on behalf of a client.

Appellate Judges Greta Gooden Brown, Lisa Rose and Ellen Torregrossa-O'Connor sat on the panel for the Appellate Division.

The state is represented by Michael Zuckerman, Michael Breslin, Andrew Wellbrock, Michael Grillo, Adam D. Klein and Amanda E. Nini of the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General.

George Norcross is represented by Michael Critchley Sr. of Critchley Kinum & Luria LLC and Anthony J. Dick of Jones Day.

William Tambussi is represented by Jeffrey S. Chiesa and Lee Vartan of Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC.

Philip Norcross is represented by Kevin H. Marino of Marino Tortorella & Boyle PC.

Dana Redd is represented by Henry Klingeman of Klingeman Cerimele Attorneys.

John O'Donnell is represented by Gerald Krovatin of Krovatin Nau LLC.

Sidney Brown is represented by Lawrence S. Lustberg of Gibbons PC.

The case is State of New Jersey v. George E. Norcross III et al., case number A-1833-24T5, in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Appellate Division.