Dirty NJ judge Harry D. Norton Jr.
People can’t help but question what it means when a supposedly experienced municipal court judge brazenly contradicts the NJ Court Rules in open court and on the record.
Is the judge crazy? Is the judge drunk with power? Is the judge seeking retaliation against a defendant who filed multiple ethics complaints against that judge?
The fact that anyone has to ask those questions means that the judge is doing something VERY WRONG. This is exactly the case with Upper Saddle River Municipal Court judge Harry D. Norton, Jr.
Dirty Harry Norton seems to be completely misinformed about court rules regarding a prosecutor’s request for discovery from a defendant. Rule 7:7-7(c) states:
Discovery by the State. In all cases, the municipal prosecutor or the private prosecutor in a cross complaint case, on written notice to the defendant, shall be provided with copies of all relevant material… (emphasis added)
Now listen to dirty Harry Norton say the exact opposite in court on 5/22/2108:
Dirty Harry Norton incorrectly states that the prosecutor does “not have to make a request for discovery.” Dirty Harry did not let the defendant enter the evidence in an overt effort to undermine the defendant’s defense and orchestrate the defendant’s disadvantage. This appears to be N.J.S. 2C:30-2A (Official Misconduct):
A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with purpose to … injure or to deprive another of a benefit:
a. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized or he is committing such act in an unauthorized manner.
Why would a geezer judge risk his entire career by openly and brazenly violating a defendant’s rights? Is it because there is no accountability in the NJ judiciary? Is it because the ACJC simply exists so obfuscate claims of judicial misconduct?
The answer is YES.
