New Jersey's municipal court system prosecutes game violations "by preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to criminal court, which is guilt or innocence "beyond reasonable doubt." Armando did not have the option of a jury, and it was evident in both court transcripts that neither judge knew anything about deer hunting. It appeared that Armando's first lawyer thought he had a slam-dunk case of innocence and that the judge would agree. But that didn't happen!

Attorney Evan F. Nappen's firm represented Armando on his first appeal. Nappen said that Armando's case was the most blatant miscarriage of justice he had ever seen that involved a game violation. Even the appeals court judge believed the forensic "expert's" testimony over three eyewitnesses. Nappen, who is recommended by the NRA, stated to me that New Jersey's municipal court system is highly "anti-hunting."

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
There are more questions than answers in this bizarre tale: 1) Did the game wardens perform their jobs according to New Jersey's Fish and Wildlife procedures? I asked two unrelated game wardens from different states what their protocol would have required. Both said they'd have interviewed eyewitnesses and inspected the kill site. 2) In order to get a conviction, did the forensic expert weigh his findings in favor of the prosecution? Dr. Roscoe testified in court that salting of the hide could hinder bullet residue extraction and affect test results.

But according to another top forensics expert that I talked to, Roscoe fell short of stating that salt, scraping and other chemical treatment of the cape could have inhibited test results that would have proven Armando innocent. By Roscoe's own admission in court, he had not contacted the taxidermist to ask about the chemical processing of the cape.

It was also speculated by Warden Kille that the buck "may have been poisoned." Yet neither Roscoe nor either of the game wardens ever asked for any of Armando's meat for testing. 3) Why wasn't the investigation stopped by the division captain when the forensic expert found no traces of bullet residue? 4) Lastly, Carlo DeFeo stated in an interview, "Why weren't Anthony, Chris and I found guilty of perjury if they thought we lied under oath?"

The most distressing question that Armando had to answer during the entire 1 1/2-year ordeal was not in court. His youngest daughter, Victoria, asked, "Daddy, why did those policemen take your deer?"

Holding back tears, Armando answered, "Don't worry, honey, everything will be all right."

Armando tried to remember only what Victoria had said when they were taking photos of the buck on that glorious night. "Daddy, I want to hunt 'deers' just like you."

FOR YOUR INFORMATION
Armando recently decided to make his second and final appeal in an attempt to clear his name. As mentioned, his lawyer was recommended by the National Rifle Association, of which he is a member. Duncan Dobie and I have established a fund to help pay Armando's legal fees: The Armando Pioppi Jr. Fund. Duncan and I will be the fund's executors.

As fellow deer hunters, let's not let Armando suffer this expense and injustice alone. If you'd like to help, please send a check or money order to: The Armando Pioppi Jr. Fund, State Street Bank East, 4820 Broadway, Quincy, IL 62305. This money is not tax deductible but it is going to a worthy cause. If any money is left over after Armando is reimbursed, that amount will be given to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. We'll keep you updated as to Armando's progress with his appeal.

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