ShareThis Page
Pittsburgh brothers indicted in meth ring case with ties to Greensburg | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

Pittsburgh brothers indicted in meth ring case with ties to Greensburg

Natasha Lindstrom
917369_web1_WEB-meth

A federal grand jury has indicted a pair of Pittsburgh brothers in a methamphetamine ring with ties to Greensburg, U.S. Attorney Scott W. Brady said Thursday.

Cassidy Barton, 35, and Forrest Barton, 30, are accused of scheming to acquire and sell more than 1 pound, or 500 grams, of a substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine.

Cassidy Barton also is charged with possession of more than 500 grams of the meth mixture.

Single doses can start at 5 milligrams, with heavy users consuming more than 50 milligrams.

At 50 milligrams per dose, 500 grams is enough meth for more than 10,000 doses.

If convicted, Cassidy Barton faces a sentence of not less than 10 years and a fine up to $20 million.

His brother could face not less than 10 years in prison and a fine up to $10 million.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael L. Ivory is prosecuting the case with help from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and Pittsburgh and Greensburg police.

Natasha Lindstrom is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Natasha at 412-380-8514, nlindstrom@tribweb.com or via Twitter .

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 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.