Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Here’s a section from your TPWD statutes that MAY have a USFW counterpart relevant to what happened to Ken in BBNP:

§ 62.008. PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE. Except as provided in
Subchapter B of this chapter, possession of a wild game bird, wild
game animal, or other species of protected wildlife, whether dead
or alive, during a time when the hunting of the animal, bird, or
species is prohibited is prima facie evidence of the guilt of the
person in possession.

Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 1405, ch. 545, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1975.

Then, from Wik:

Prima facie is a Latin expression (which originates from Middle English) meaning "on its first appearance", or "by first instance" used in common law jurisdictions to denote evidence that is sufficient, if not rebutted, to prove a particular proposition or fact. In most legal proceedings, one of the parties has the burden of proof, which requires that party to present prima facie evidence of all facts essential to its case. If that party fails to present prima facie evidence on any required element of its case, its claim may be dismissed without any response by the opposing party. A prima facie case may be insufficient to enable a party to prevail if the opposing party introduces contradictory evidence or asserts an affirmative defense.

I think this is why every single ticket or citation like this that is "prima facie" evidence of being BOGUS-lol, has to rebutted in a court of law, and why Texas herpers and naturalists have to form an alliance-a watch dog group-to provide for their common defense. Hopefully, the days when this kind of #$#$ can stand ARE OVER.

R

I think this is why every single ticket or citation like this that is "prima facie" evidence of being BOGUS-lol, has to rebutted in a court of law, and why Texas herpers and naturalists have to form an alliance-a watch dog group-to provide for their common defense.

What this law says that if you are suspected of hunting illegally (be it on a right or way or anywhere else), the presence of critters in your car can be used against you as evidence of your guilt, even if they didn't witness you in the act of taking it. The presence of the critters means the burden of your innocence now falls on you.

Hopefully, the days when this kind of #$#$ can stand ARE OVER.

This kind of evidence is, and has been used, for centuries in the law. If you are driving around in a car with a dead body in the trunk, they can arrest.

I don't think that is in any way unreasonable.
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

Well, let me try to enlighten you, and hopefully you won’t draw anymore silly analogies between misdemeanors and capital crimes. Mr. Vadoni was not arrested in BBNP for having specimens “in the trunk”. Mr Vadoni was cited for having animals “in the trunk”, because he was within the jurisdiction of the park. According to Mr. Vadoni, he had PROOF they were collected from outside the park. Now, this is the important part Chris. IF he was cited BECAUSE the animals in the trunk constituted prima facie evidence of collection within the park, then he should have the adequate rebuttal for this citation in a court of law. IF he could be cited BECAUSE the animals in the trunk constituted prima facie evidence of collection within the park, AND the park ranger had the discretion not to issue a citation because MR Vadnais has sufficient proof, then he SHOULD NOT have received the citation, because bubba, it’s not just BBNP anymore. If you have “wild animals” in your vehicle while you’re on the public roads and right of ways hunting for invertebrates, you may be riding around with prima facie evidence of guilt. Do you expect every Game Warden to issue citations if hunters are stopped for hunting invertebrates and they have “wild animals” in their motor vehicles, but indicate that these animals were taken from private land? How about this - do you expect every Game Warden to issue citations if hunters are stopped for hunting invertebrates and they have “wild animals” in their motor vehicles, plus a letter from a ranch granting permission to hunt “wild animals” on their land? And, if your answer is still yes, wouldn’t the letter from the ranch constitute sufficient evidence to rebut this in a court of law? That’s my point, bubba.

RP