Prosecutors: Former police chief should get tougher sentence because of conspiracy plea
Former Pittsburgh police Chief Nate Harper pleaded guilty in October to ordering subordinates to divert public money into police credit union accounts so he cannot seek a lighter sentence based on the argument that he did not lead a criminal conspiracy, federal prosecutors said on Friday.
Harper, 61, of Stanton Heights faces a recommended prison term of 18 to 24 months when U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon sentences him on Tuesday on a conspiracy charge and four counts of failing to file income tax returns.
Harper is asking Bissoon to sentence him to probation. The government is seeking a prison sentence within the range recommended by federal sentencing guidelines.
The former chief's lawyers filed court documents last week arguing that the government has to show that at least one other person involved in diverting the money knew that he or she was committing a crime to prove there was a conspiracy and that Harper was one of its leaders.
The government does not have to show that, Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Cessar said in a response filed on Friday.
Harper pleaded guilty to a criminal conspiracy and, specifically, to an indictment that “explains that it was the defendant who was instructing police department employees, all of whom were under his command and were co-conspirators, to take various actions,” Cessar said.
Harper's attorneys filed letters from 12 people asking Bissoon to show him leniency, bringing the total letters of support to 27. The letter writers include family members, longtime friends, retired police officers and community activists.
Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.