ShareThis Page

Jeannette man accused of kidnapping mother rejects plea deal

Rich Cholodofsky
| Monday, April 16, 2018, 6:12 p.m.

A Jeannette man accused of kidnapping his mother two years ago rejected a plea bargain Monday that would have required him to serve up to four years in prison.

Neal Hubish, 37, is in jail awaiting trial on charges that in February 2016 he kept his mother captive in her home for a day after she had picked him up from the Westmoreland County Prison following his parole on three prior convictions.

According to court records, Hubish's mother told police her son broke her phone, threw a bottle of pills, yelled and threatened to kill her. He allegedly took her car keys and demanded $16,000 while continuing to talk incoherently, slam doors and walk around the house through the night, police said.

She also claimed Hubish refused to let her go to work the next day and she was only able to get help after she drove him to a local gas station and asked a clerk to call 911.

During a status conference hearing on Monday, Hubish said he would not accept a deal that required him to plead guilty and serve a 2- to 4-year prison sentence.

“You're not going to threaten me with state time,” Hubish said just prior to being escorted from the courtroom by three deputy sheriffs.

Hubish is in jail in lieu of $250,000 bail.

Meanwhile, Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court Judge Tim Krieger allowed private defense attorney Jeffrey Weinberg of Pittsburgh to withdraw from the case.

A trial date has not been set.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 724-830-6293 or

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.

click me