Courtroom no-show causes delay
A young witness failed to show up for a Monday hearing for a White Oak man accused of ethnic intimidation and indecent exposure.
While five other youngsters and an adult were ready to testify, Magisterial District Judge Thomas Miller Jr. agreed to the prosecution's request to delay the hearing for William Paul Elyes, 54, until Jan. 6 at 1 p.m.
Elyes remains free on $3,000 bond pending the hearing on charges stemming from incidents on Dec. 3 and 4 at Bishop Playground, not far from his home.
According to a police affidavit both incidents occurred shortly after 5 p.m.
The affidavit quoted the adult witness as saying Elyes yelled obscenities at her, her children and other youngsters.
He allegedly threatened on both days to get his gun if the youngsters didn't stop playing basketball at the playground.
On Dec. 4, according to the affidavit, he pulled down his pants and exposed his private parts to children ages 9-18 at the playground.
He was arrested a short time later by White Oak police and charged with a felony count of ethnic intimidation and misdemeanor counts of harassment, disorderly conduct, terroristic threats, indecent exposure and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Assistant District Attorney Lee Goldfarb is prosecuting the case while Elyes is represented by Assistant Public Defender Sean Link.
Patrick Cloonan is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-664-9161, ext. 1967, or email@example.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 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.