ShareThis Page
Valley News Dispatch

New Kensington man rejects plea deal in child porn case; trial set to begin Oct. 1

Rich Cholodofsky
| Thursday, Sept. 13, 2018, 5:12 p.m.

A New Kensington man awaiting trial on charges that he possessed as many as 10,000 items of child pornography rejected a plea bargain on Thursday that would have resulted in his serving at least 12-1/2 years in prison.

Joshua Pottle during a hearing before Westmoreland County Court Judge Rita Hathaway said he would not accept the deal and wanted his case to go to trial.

Deputy Attorney General Chuck Washburn said the deal called for Pottle to serve up to 25 years in prison. Pottle faces a mandatory sentence of 25 to 50 years in prison if convicted at trial, Washburn said.

Pottle, 37, was arrested in 2015 and charged with 40 counts of possession of child pornography as part of a statewide investigation. Police claim they found thousands of images and videos on his home computer that were suspected to be of child pornography.

Pottle is serving as his own lawyer. On Thursday, he asked the judge to allow him to testify at his trial as a computer expert to dispute evidence expected to be presented by prosecutors pertaining what investigators found on his home computer.

The judge rejected that request but said Pottle could testify on his on behalf.

The trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 1, Washburn said.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293 or rcholodofsky@tribweb.com.

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.

click me