Express Libel Suit Heading to State Supreme Court

HARRISBURG – A suit between a former county commissioner and a local media organization has been in the court system for some five years – and it appears it’s not quite over yet.

Former Clinton County commissioner Adam Coleman will be appealing a turn-down of his libel suit against The Express newspaper and two of its employees following the June 28, 2016, decision by a state Superior Court panel, which heard his appeal on the matter.

A three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a trial court ruling that granted summary judgment to The Express in the case, saying there was no actual malice in reporting, at worst negligence or carelessness.

In upholding the trial court’s decision, the Superior Court noted that reporting by The Express was based on a news release from the attorney general’s office and court documents.

“Upon thorough review of Coleman’s claims of error and the applicable legal principles, we agree with the trial court that the reporting was, at worst, negligent,” the court resolved. “We conclude as a matter of law that Coleman did not present any evidence that could lead a fact-finder to the clear conviction, without hesitancy, that [The Express] published any false statements about him with actual malice.”

“We have welcomed the rulings in our favor from the Clinton County Court of Common Pleas and the state Superior Court, and now we await the final word from the state Supreme Court,” said Robert O. Rolley, Jr., publisher of The Express. Rolley and Express reporter Jim Runkle were among those named as defendants in the case.

Coleman contends the case should move forward, arguing the newspaper printed misleading information about his involvement with the matter on a number of occasions.

“After consulting with my legal counsel, I feel it is best not to comment on the substance of this matter,” Coleman said. “I can however say that I believe the state Superior Court wrongly decided this matter. Also at this time, there is already an appeal petition pending before the state Supreme Court.”

Back in 2011, Coleman was one of three individuals initially charged in relation to a scam that saw roughly $130,000 removed from the Lock Haven YMCA’s bankrolls for personal use between 2006 and 2010. He faced one count of theft by unlawful taking, one count of theft by deception and one count of criminal conspiracy for his involvement in diverting $1,465 in YMCA funds for personal use, but was ultimately acquitted.

The criminal complaint also said the former commissioner and then-YMCA executive director Jerry Clark used their leadership positions at the Lock Haven Area Elks Lodge to apply for a $5,300 grant from the National Elks Foundation for an after-school program at the YMCA that was reimbursed to the two men after creating fake invoices totaling $5,200.

Coleman contended he was innocent and that the funds were taken in the form of an “I.O.U.” that he repaid.

Coleman was running for re-election at the time and continued to do so despite the criminal proceeding. After being acquitted of theft charges in July 2012, Coleman and his attorney, Robert Englert, turned their attentions to The Express, who they claimed defamed Coleman and cost him re-election to the county’s board of commissioners.

“This stuff comes out, I go from being first in the poll, to last in the poll, this had a lot to do with what transpired in the election last year,” Coleman had said.

Coleman and his attorney said headlines published in The Express, owned by West Virginia-based Ogden Newspapers Inc., were false and misleading as they indicated Coleman was involved in Clark’s diversion of over $100,000 from the YMCA. They said that Coleman was unaware of the amount of funds Clark had diverted and that the charges against him and his mother Kim Coleman involved funds totaling $3,899.33, which were repaid in December 2009.

The Express claims Coleman lacks evidence to establish actual malice.

Clinton County senior judge J. Michael Williamson initially dismissed Coleman’s complaint, and he filed for appeal in October 2015.

In the appeal, Coleman questions if the court erred or abused its discretion by finding that he failed to present sufficient record evidence for the jury to conclude the media organization acted with malice, and by failing to consider The Express’s decision to republish what he called false statements after learning of them being false.

Based on constitutional protections for freedom of speech, the trial court found that, “while not the best reporting, all of the articles referenced by [Coleman] were merely attempts to establish a background for a criminal prosecution which culminated in a jury trial in which [Coleman] was charged.”

The trial court found that “nothing in the record establishes any basis for a finding that ill will existed” between Coleman and The Express, adding “confusion in reporting is not a basis for a finding of malice. Simply put, nothing in the record suggests that this civil case should proceed further.”