ShareThis Page
Pittsburgh cop accused of lying to feds set to plead guilty |

Pittsburgh cop accused of lying to feds set to plead guilty

| Wednesday, December 5, 2018 11:33 a.m

A Pittsburgh police officer accused of lying to federal investigators will plead guilty next month in federal court, records show.

A plea hearing for Antoine Cain, 49, is scheduled for Jan. 15 in front of U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab. He is set to waive his right to indictment by a grand jury and plead guilty.

Cain was charged Nov. 27 with two counts of making false statements to government agents, according to information unsealed Nov. 29. He has been on unpaid suspension from the police department pending the outcome of the case, according to a department spokesman.

The charges against Cain related to a January bank robbery at the Citizens Bank on Foster Avenue near the Pittsburgh-Ingram border.

In that case, Brent Richards, 32, of Ingram, is charged with armed bank robbery and brandishing a firearm, according to an indictment returned Nov. 27. Richards’ mother, 47-year-old Melissa Kane, is charged in the same case with hindering Richards’ apprehension.

During a July 27 interview with FBI agents regarding the bank robbery, Cain allegedly “denied any knowledge of the identity of the individual” who robbed the bank, according to the charges against him. He repeated the same alleged lie during another interview July 31.

In reality, not only did Cain know who the suspect was, but the suspect had actually told Cain that he was responsible for the robbery, records show.

City records show Cain has been a member of the department since 1994. As of June, he was assigned to Zone 6 with a salary of $66,726.

Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Megan at 412-380-8519, or via Twitter @meganguzaTrib.

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.