Click here to subscribe today or Login.
WILKES-BARRE — Testimony in the case of a Luzerne man accused of exposing himself at a Plymouth flea market was punctuated Wednesday by arguments between the alleged victim and the man’s defense attorney.
Clark Van Orden, 68, is accused of exposing himself at a flea market in Fainberg’s Furniture store Dec. 10, 2016, while on a freelance photo assignment on the opening of the flea market for the Times Leader Media Group.
Van Orden was an independent contractor for the newspaper at the time of the incident and not an employee.
He argued he simply “had an itch,” and the alleged victim was offended he scratched himself near his genitals.
The flea market’s co-owner, Nancy McEntee, said she was waiting at a table with Van Orden for a reporter who never arrived. The two were seated across from each other, when she said she noticed Van Orden was “fidgeting” with his hands under the table.
“I thought he was doing something he shouldn’t have been doing,” McEntee told prosecutor Angela Sperrazza, further explaining she was afraid to look at Van Orden.
“I didn’t want to verify what it was,” she said. “Then he stood up and I got my verification.”
She said when Van Orden stood, his penis was outside of his pants. She said he stood there with a seemingly stupefied look on his face.
“‘What are you doing?’” she said she asked him.
“‘I don’t know, I don’t know,’” allegedly came Van Orden’s stammered response. “‘I’m sorry, I’m sorry.’”
She said Van Orden then left “in a hurry.”
When Sperrazza asked McEntee how she felt afterward, McEntee said, “I was shocked and stunned and I couldn’t believe it.”
On cross-examination, defense attorney Joseph Sklarosky asked McEntee to further describe what she saw.
“Was he circumcised?” Sklarosky asked.
McEntee seemed taken aback.
“How would I know? I didn’t look that long,” she said before mumbling to herself the question was “crazy.”
Luzerne County Judge Michael T. Vough ordered her to not make any similar comments.
Sklarosky also focused on a woman mentioned in the complaint against Van Orden, but who was not mentioned in McEntee’s initial written statement.
According to the complaint, a woman unknown to McEntee was seated next to Van Orden, and left when Van Orden stood up. Sklarosky asked why the woman was left out of McEntee’s initial statement, which McEntee chalked up to not seeming relevant at the time.
On re-direct examination by Sperrazza, McEntee confirmed she was the only one to see Van Orden exposed.
Sklarosky accused McEntee of fabricating the whole story in an attempt to get money from the Times Leader in an as-yet not filed lawsuit. Sklarosky previously called the hypothetical suit a “shakedown.”
“I don’t need money,” McEntee said.
“Then why don’t you pay your taxes?” Sklarosky boomed. Prosecutor Sperrazza immediately shouted out an objection, leading attorneys to go to a sidebar with Vough.
“Let’s not get personal,” McEntee said while attorneys were going to the sidebar, leading Vough to once again direct her to not make such statements.
‘Had an itch’
After prosecutors rested their case Wednesday morning, Sklarosky called Van Orden as the defense’s main witness.
When McEntee saw him “fidgeting,” he said he was acutally scrolling through Facebook and Instagram.
Van Orden went on to say he scratched himself near his genitals without thinking much of it, but said McEntee began to act offended. He said when McEntee asked “What are you doing?” he responded, “I’m sorry, I had an itch.”
Van Orden adamantly claims he did not expose himself, saying he thought he offended her by scratching himself in “the presence of a woman.” He added he was surprised when he learned police were getting involved in the case.
The defense also rested its case before 11 a.m. Wednesday. Vough allowed jurors to go home very early due to weather.
Closing arguments begin Thursday at 11 a.m.