BLOOMFIELD, NJ — Vincent Ascolese, the former Bloomfield animal-control officer charged with allegedly euthanizing a fawn by slitting the animal’s throat, had a hearing in Bloomfield Municipal Court on Nov. 23 with Chief Municipal Court Judge John Paparazzo presiding. A casually dressed Ascolese was in the courtroom seated on a bench with unidentified individuals while the attorneys sat before judge.
Ascolese’s attorneys successfully convinced Paparazzo that there was confusion as to what statute governed the actions of their client. Attorneys Peter Willis and James Lisa argued that Ascolese should not be judged under the tougher laws governing the NJ Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for slitting the fawn’s throat, but the more lenient ones of the NJ Fish and Wildlife Division.
Ascolese was charged by the NJSPCA, in October 2015, for killing an injured, and according to courtroom statements, an unconscious fawn, on June 29, 2015.
Ascolese also faces charges for the alleged mistreatment of two other animals.
An Aug. 19, 2015, inspection of the Bloomfield animal facilities revealed an improperly sheltered dog, Benny, who had sores on his legs and required veterinary care. Also, a baby squirrel was found with its eyes closed and “without proper food, shelter, nutrition, and veterinary care for two days,” according to court papers.
Willis and Lisa had tried to convince Paparazzo that a squirrel and a fawn were not animals protected by the NJSPCA but wildlife exclusively under the laws of NJ Fish and Wildlife. Paparazzo did not agree, but said all animals were under the jurisdiction of both agencies. As a consequence, he now had to decide which agency had jurisdiction over Ascolese’s killing of the fawn. He said he was concerned that the long-standing charges against Ascolese had to be settled soon.
“I want to decide before the end of the year,” Paparazzo told Willis, Lisa, and Township Prosecutor John Cerza. “There’s not a lot of case law to help. Would a reasonable person think that these laws conflict? Bloomfield doesn’t have a lot of these cases. Bloomfield doesn’t have deer running through town.”
Paparazzo set a Dec. 20 trial date, at 1 p.m. over Cerza’s objection that a one-day trial is not enough time.
“The law is ambiguous,” Lisa said. “And my client should get the benefit of the ambiguity.”
He argued that if someone obeys one law, they should not be judged because they disobeyed another.
Paparazzo agreed with Lisa. The judge said that according to NJ Fish and Wildlife standards an animal which is paralized is deemed to be dead. He asked Cerza if he thought the two laws presented a problem. Cerza said no.
There were several other times when Cerza disagreed with the judge that any conclusions could be drawn without facts that would emerge in the trial.
Paparazzo said if Ascolese euthanized a deer, there would be no problem under Fish and Wildlife; Cerza said that was for a trial to decide. Paparazzo said the deer was not going to survive; Cerva said that was a question of fact. Lisa said the deer was paralysed; Cerva wanted to know if that was a fact.
“Bottom line,” Paparazzo said, “they are animals. The issue is, anyone with the authority to euthanize a deer, if there are two laws, there’s a problem. It creates confusion. I can’t buy the argument they’re not animals.”
Paparazzo wanted to know if the fawn met the standards of an injured animal needing to be euthanized. But Lisa said no experts inspected the deer.
“What good is it to have experts for the prosecution if they never examined the deer?” he said
But Paparazzo said he would not put a limit on witnesses. An animal-control officer working for Ascolese witnessed the killing but was told by Ascolese to provide a false animal intake form that indicated the animal was unconscious and dead upon arrival at the shelter, according to court papers. The alleged euthanizing occurred in the driveway of the former Bukowski Animal Shelter, on Bukowski Place.
“If there is confusion, I have to rule in favor of the defendant,” Paparazzo said. “We need the facts. A judge can always make a decision on the law. I need facts.”
Paparazzo told the defense attorneys and the prosecutor that by Dec. 9 he wanted their briefs explaining whether they believed Ascolese’s actions fell under NJSPCA or Fish and Wildlife Division jurisdiction.
“We’ll do it right before Christmas,” he said of the trial.
Lawyers battle jurisdiction in deerslayer case added by Daniel Jackovino on
View all posts by Daniel Jackovino →
There IS no confusion! What he did was against the law for ANY ACO, which he is. Coincidentally and ironically Ascolese is also an Animal Cruelty Investigator. He knows what he did was wrong. He’s changed his story so many times my head spins. HE is the one who instructed the other ACO to bring that fawn to the shelter and he knew exactly what he was going to do all in the name of saving money on vet bills. If no one certified to determine the condition of the fawn then how the hell can anyone say it was paralyzed? Or brain dead (one of his explanations) or had broken legs and bones sticking out of the skin (another explanation)? He should be found guilty on all charges and stripped of both licenses. He’s a fraud and a bully.
I have TOTAL FAITH in Your Honor, and Prosecutor Cerza they will not let this individual get away and impose even a stricter sentence than that of his original plea bargain he walked away from….I already expressed by sentiments via a letter to both Your Honor and Prosecutor Cerza months ago. NOW, trying to grasp at any straw both you Willis and Lisa want to see it falls under ” the more lenient ones of the NJ Fish and Wildlife Division”!!! Give me a break! What about the neglect and abuse of the animals in the shelter…. Oh, and now we have to believe that this fawn was “Paralyzed”!!!! Another damn lie! May justice be served in Bloomfield and we can continue to get on leaving this nightmare behind us!