Judge picked to hear Beaver County Sheriff George David's criminal case
A retired Armstrong County district judge will preside over Beaver County Sheriff George David's preliminary hearing on charges he threatened a reporter with his service revolver and told a campaign volunteer he would cut off his hands and eat them.
The state Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assigned Senior District Judge Michael L. Gerheim to decide whether David should stand trial on 11 misdemeanor charges, including making terroristic threats, simple assault, official oppression and obstruction of justice. State police charged David on March 25 based on a grand jury presentment.
His hearing is scheduled for 1 p.m. April 29 in the Beaver County Courthouse. David remains free on bail and at work because county officials said they could not ban him from the courthouse while court proceedings continue.
Beaver County President Judge John D. McBride recused the county's district judges and Common Pleas judges from David's case because of the ties between the sheriff and court system. Sheriff's deputies provide security for the courthouse and in courtrooms and provide other court services, including serving warrants.
McBride last year recused the court from civil proceedings in which county commissioners sought a court order to stop David from providing private security at high school sporting events, a movie theater, department stores and other places. That case remains on appeal.
Bill Vidonic is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-380-5621 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.