Share This Page

Court sides with farmer in dispute with Game Commission

| Tuesday, March 25, 2014, 9:21 p.m.

HARRISBURG — It wasn't the $150 fine that caused farmer Jack Coble to spend thousands of dollars fighting a summary offense filed against him by the Game Commission. It was the constitutional principle that protects against self-incrimination.

On Friday, after the county prosecutor's office threw in the towel and agreed with his constitutionality argument, a state appeals court dismissed the charge.

Coble had been convicted under a state law that requires people to truthfully answer game wardens' questions about a deer killing.

In his case, he had been accused of being evasive during a wildlife conservation officer's poaching investigation on his rural Perry County farm two years ago.

The prosecutor who handled the appeal said Monday the Fifth Amendment claim had merit.

“What's at issue is the fact that you're penalized for your silence, and as we all know, anyone accused of a crime has a constitutional right to remain silent,” said Daniel Stern, a Harrisburg lawyer who works for the Perry County district attorney's office. “And evidence of that silence is not evidence of guilt.”

“It's an infringement on my constitutional right,” Coble said. “I mean, a whole lot of my constitutional rights.”

— AP

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.