Sheriff Held’s attorney wants judge to bar potential witnesses in public corruption trial |

Sheriff Held’s attorney wants judge to bar potential witnesses in public corruption trial

Rich Cholodofsky

State prosecutors have ignored a court order to submit a list of witnesses planning to testify against Westmoreland County Sheriff Jonathan Held in his public corruption trial, which is scheduled to begin next month, his attorney said Tuesday.

Defense lawyer Ryan Tutera asked a judge to bar all but two witnesses from testifying against Held. Senior Common Pleas Court Judge Timothy Creany during a hearing last month ordered the prosecution to turn over its witnesses list by Nov. 7. So far, they have not, Tutera said.

That “constitutes not only a direct disobeying of this court, but it also acts as prejudice to the defendant as he should not be subject to unfair surprise,” Tutera wrote in a court filing.

He wants to limit the prosecution to the two witnesses who testified against Held during a preliminary hearing in February.

Representatives from the state attorney general’s office could not be reached for comment.

Held, 44, of Hempfield, is awaiting trial on charges of conflict of interest and two counts of theft. Investigators contend the two-term sheriff ordered deputies and office staff to perform campaign chores while on duty.

One former deputy and a current officer testified at Held’s preliminary hearing that he directed them to seek donations to a fundraiser for the sheriff’s reelection efforts. Held has denied the allegations and contends they were made by disgruntled staffers.

Jury selection for the trial is scheduled to begin Dec. 3.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293 or [email protected]

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.