Butler County sex assault suspect's bond lowered to $15,000
A Butler County man's decision not to subject a young girl to cross- examination during a hearing for an alleged Saxonburg sex case led to a district judge lowering the man's bond on Tuesday.
Jack L. Nulph, 54, of Connoquenessing waived all charges to court and maintains he is not guilty.
His attorney told a district judge that Nulph didn't give up his rights later to question the competency of the 8-year-old to testify accurately.
Attorney Patrick Casey of Butler said he needs to review Children and Youth Services (CYS) video and audiotape, transcriptions and any other prosecution evidence to determine whether the defense will challenge the child's word.
Chicora District Judge Lewis Stoughton said he reduced Nulph's bond from $50,000 to $15,000 cash or surety, with conditions, because the girl didn't have to testify on Tuesday.If Nulph can post bond, he must obey pre-trial conditions set by Stoughton.
Nulph was ordered to abstain from drugs and alcohol and get rid of any firearms in his house. Nulph must agree to blood testing and have his house searched.
Assistant District Attorney Russell Karl did not oppose the bond reduction.
He declined to comment Tuesday.
Casey said his client is pleading not guilty. Nulph had been a Rural Valley police officer and later was a security guard, Casey said.
In July, the girl's mother took her to a hospital to be examined. County CYS and police were later contacted.
On Sept. 6, Saxonburg police accused Nulph of multiple aggravated indecent assault and indecent assault charges they allege happened in a house and car.
Nulph has been in the Butler County jail since.
He is scheduled to be formally arraigned in Butler County Court on Nov. 12.
Chuck Biedka is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-226-4711 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
More Valley News Dispatch
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 â 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.