Monessen men get probation for shooting after evidence problems thwart retrial |

Monessen men get probation for shooting after evidence problems thwart retrial

Rich Cholodofsky

Two men implicated in a nonfatal shooting nearly two years ago in Monessen were sentenced to probation.

Joseph “Jo Jo” Heath III, 29, of Monessen, pleaded guilty to lesser misdemeanor charges of simple assault, reckless endangerment and making terroristic threats in connection with the June 25, 2017, shooting of Timothy “Boo” Kershaw.

Heath was sentenced Monday by Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court Judge Christopher Feliciani to serve five years on probation. Prosecutors dismissed felony counts of attempted murder, conspiracy and robbery.

Rashawn Ford, 23, also of Monessen, pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor count of disorderly conduct and was sentenced to serve one year on probation. Two conspiracy counts were dismissed.

Ford, who had been in jail for the last year, was to be released from custody late Monday.

The plea bargains came as jury selection was slated to begin in retrials for both men.

The case ended in a mistrial in January after Feliciani ruled prosecutors had failed to disclose key evidence that defense attorneys claimed could have resulted in acquittals.

Assistant District Attorney Adam Barr on Monday conceded evidentiary problems led to the plea deal.

“It was in the best interest to resolve these cases,” Barr said.

Prosecutors also were unsure if one of the witnesses, the man police said drove the vehicle targeted in the shooting, could be brought back to testify.

That witness is in the U.S military and stationed in South Korea. Barr said the county paid about $1,500 to have him returned to Westmoreland County to testify in the aborted trial in January.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Westmoreland
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.