"I told them they could go to Ted's Taxidermy and see the deer's hide (with the arrow wound) for themselves," Armando said.

To his utter shock, Armando then learned that the antlers and hide had been confiscated. He was told that the hide had been forensically tested and the results proved the arrow hole was "postmortem" (after death), and that the buck could not have been killed with an arrow. Armando could not believe his ears!

"I have three eyewitnesses who can verify the truth," Armando contended. "Who is this informant who says I used a rifle and trespassed?" The game wardens refused to identify the accuser, insisting that the information was "confidential." Armando stated that he had three witnesses who helped him recover the deer. "Did they see you shoot the deer?" one of the wardens asked.

Armando answered no. He gave a voluntary statement regarding the archery harvest and offered the names of his witnesses. The wardens told him that he was lying and that they'd see him in court. On Dec. 27, 2005, Armando received three citations in the mail: DFW059751 for "Tampering with public records," DFW059752 for "Unlawfully tagging and transportation of a deer," and DFW059753 for "Unlawful possession of a deer." The first charge was eventually dropped.

The decision to ticket Armando was based in part on a forensic analysis by Fish and Wildlife's Division pathologist/toxicologist Dr. Douglas Roscoe. Contrary to the informant's information, Roscoe found no traces of powder or bullet residue in the arrow wound, and the arrow hole was the only intrusion in the deer's skin.

Lt. Leonard's Division report, which was later admitted into court evidence, stated Roscoe had written that the deer could not have been taken by somebody shooting from a tree stand (due to trajectory). In truth, this summation was not found anywhere in Roscoe's written report by the defense attorney.

Unbelievably, not one of Armando's three witnesses was ever interviewed by a game warden. Nor did any wardens ever inspect the kill site or the ladder stand. Additionally, they had no evidence of a poached kill at a trespassing site. Upon cross-examination in court, Armando's lawyer asked Lt. Leonard "if he ever had any prior dealings with Armando as far as charging him with fish and game violations?" Leonard, a 17-year veteran with New Jersey's Fish and Wildlife Division, stated, "No, I have not."

THE SLOW WHEELS OF JUSTICE
After spending more than $8,000 in legal fees and suffering many sleepless nights for over a year, Armando was not able to exonerate himself. He went through one municipal court hearing and one appeal. He does have the option of making one final appeal, which he intends to do if he can come up with the estimated additional $5,000 for attorney fees.

In the spring of 2007 Armando wrote to North American Whitetail about his plight. He included photos, a written version of his story, and the transcripts from the court case and appeal. If he could not get justice in court, he thought, he might at least vindicate himself among his peers with a story.

page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6