Coach’s day in court causes more pain for his victims

Stacy J. Willis and Kim Smith

Friday, March 30, 2001 | 4:39 a.m.

He is waiting in the courthouse hall, wearing his adolescence in the awkward way that boys do -- he's taller than he acts and still too skinny to fill out his crisp shirt and pleated pants.

He is full of nerve -- rubbing his hands, kicking his rubbery legs into one another, shooting his eyes all around the place without landing anywhere long enough to be caught. If all were as it should be, he would be preparing for a junior high school dance or maybe a seventh grade speech.

But he is not. Barely 13, he is about to take the stand to testify against his former baseball coach: a man who took him golfing and to the movies, a man who told him to pull his pants down and perform sex acts with other boys, a man who literally flipped a coin to decide how to abuse numerous children.

How this young Las Vegan got here -- to the witness stand in a public trial -- is a story about trust and betrayal, and a story about the rough roads victims and prosecutors sometimes take en route to justice.

It has been nearly two years since former coach Garen Pearson, a 42-year-old landscaper, was arrested and charged with 39 counts of sex-related crimes with children.

Pearson doesn't deny that he had sex with the seven boys -- most of them 10 or 11 years old. They were his baseball players, his friends' children, even a child who considered Pearson his "big brother."

He had sex with the boys in remote desert areas, he had sex with them in his truck outside their homes. He played games with the boys -- flipping quarters to decide who would perform oral sex on whom, using golf scores to decide who would drop his pants the longest.

He has known since he was arrested that he would end up going to prison for his crimes, his attorney said.

On Wednesday, a jury found him guilty on all 39 counts: 23 counts of sexual assault with a minor, 14 counts of lewdness with a minor, two counts of open and gross lewdness with a minor.

District Judge Michael Cherry must decide whether Pearson will serve the sentences concurrently or consecutively. At a minimum he will receive a life sentence with the eligibility of parole after 20 years.

To prevent the boys from having to testify, the state offered Pearson a plea arrangement that would have locked him up for 20 years.

Initially he accepted and pleaded guilty to one count for each alleged victim: three counts of felony sexual assault with a victim under 14, one count of open and gross lewdness, two counts of lewdness with a minor under 14, and one count of felony sexual assault with a minor under 16.

"But then he decided he had been ill-advised on the law, and changed his mind," Deputy District Attorney Tom Carroll said. "He maintains that it was consensual sex."

Pearson claimed he was not guilty of sexual assault and wanted a jury to consider the issue so that he might be eligible for parole within 10 years if found guilty of the lesser charges. Carroll said the state was then forced to take these boys to trial to ensure Pearson would be locked up long enough.

Nevada's sexual assault statutes allow defendants to say the alleged victims -- no matter how old they are -- took part in the acts willingly. "That's ridiculous. This whole trial is a joke," said the father of one of the boys. "He knows he's guilty -- everyone here knows he is guilty, but here we are."

The statute in question says prosecutors must show the acts were committed against the victim's will or "under conditions in which the perpetrator knows or should have known the victim was mentally or physically incapable of resisting, or doesn't understand the nature of the conduct." Pearson claimed that because the boys participated in the sex games without being physically forced, they consented to sex, and he is not guilty of sexual assault.

"And if we would have opposed his wish to withdraw from the plea, he would have appealed the decision to deny his withdrawal, and that would have sent it back to the court two or three years later, and none of the parents wanted that," Carroll said. "They were tired of the endless delays."

Whether Pearson decided to force the trial because he earnestly thought he might convince a jury it was consensual sex -- or because he wanted to further exploit his victims -- is open for speculation.

Either way, it meant the boys' first set of experiences with Pearson was not their last.

"In the criminal justice system, only one vote counts," Clark County District Attorney Stewart Bell said. "If the defendant votes, 'I'm having a trial,' the rest of the votes don't count.

"Knowing Garen Pearson's history and the amount of boys he abused, we have to make certain he can't ever be in a position to do it again," Bell said. "If what it takes is a trial to make sure Garen Pearson doesn't molest another child in our community, that's what it takes."

Testimony

Did the children's parents feel as certain?

Would putting their already victimized sons in front of Pearson, in public, to explain the sex acts in graphic detail further traumatize them?

"At first, I didn't want my son to do it," one father said. "I would just rather that he didn't testify, that he put it behind him."

"We could have backed out," said another victim's father, who regularly shared beers with Pearson at his northwest valley home before the arrest. "But I think my son wanted to go through with it. He said he wanted to be there at the closing arguments, and he wants to be there at the sentencing. I think in some ways he wanted to see that (Pearson) gets what he deserves."

Carroll said that he discussed the decision to try the case with the victims' parents.

"It is up to the state to decide, but we certainly take the input of the parents," Carroll said. "We decided that the best thing for little boys in our community was to put him away for a much longer time." Deputy Public Defender Joe Abood, who handles many sexual assault cases, said the statute that allows for minors to consent to sex has a purpose.

"We have cases with 13- and 14-year-old girls who are acting like women," Abood said. "They are much more sophisticated than you and I were at that age. It's in these cases that we have to consider consent very seriously."

"Anyone who denies, across the board, that a 12- or 13-year-old can't consent is kidding themselves," Abood said.

Although the Bill of Rights guarantees a person the right to confront his accusers and question them, accommodations have been made in 34 states to separate a child from an abuser during testimony, according to the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse. In Illinois, child victims are permitted to testify and be cross-examined via closed circuit TV under that state's Child Shield Act. In other states children have been allowed to testify behind screens separating them from the defendant.

In Nevada, however, the Supreme Court has been "very restrictive" about limiting the defendant's right to confront, said Teresa Lowry, chief deputy district attorney and child specialist in the special victims unit, which specifically addresses sex crimes. In 1995 the Supreme Court overturned a sex assault conviction in which the prosecutor himself had acted as a shield between the young victim and the defendant during testimony, Lowry said.

Child witnesses

Prosecutors also say it is more difficult to convict without the child's testimony.

"Jurors want to see that kid. They want to judge that kid. Jurors hold kids to an incredibly high standard," Lowry said.

In many cases, skepticism runs high about a child's ability to recall events accurately and stand strong against the influence of prosecutors, counselors and angry parents.

Some children lie. Some give inconsistent or contrived statements. Two years ago a 7-year-old took the stand in Harrisburg, Pa., and said "my daddy abused me."

Under cross-examination, she immediately got up to point out the person who told her to say that: the rape crisis counselor. District attorneys in the special victims unit are specially trained to deal with victims of sexual abuse. They take courses in psychology and work closely with counselors and other mental-health specialists.

"I think that when you reassure parents that you really do have the training and the expertise to do this, they understand," Lowry said. "Some kids actually feel better (after testifying). They are relieved and supported, and they feel like they get control over the bad guy."

Other kids don't react to the pressure so well.

"I had one case that just devastated me," Lowry said. The case involved a 13-year-old girl who was going to testify against her father for sex abuse.

"The day before the preliminary (hearing), I got a message that she had slit both of her wrists and her throat," Lowry said. "She is still alive, thankfully.

"Obviously, I can't take that case to court right now. I've told her psychiatrist to let me know when and if she is ready. In these cases, you have to say that the No. 1 most important thing is the child's mental health," Lowry said.

Lingering effects

Kids experience a range of psychological effects from sex abuse.

"At first, he wouldn't go to sleep by himself. He didn't want to be alone," a parent of one victim said about the suffering her child went through as a result of Pearson's abuse. "Later, his grades started going down."

In Southern Nevada, victims of sex crimes are offered free counseling, paid for by county and state funds, Carroll said. Two of the seven boys in the Pearson case opted for counseling, along with one set of parents.

"Children who have been sexually abused feel that they have lost their power, lost control of their lives," Vicki Graff, clinical director of Family and Child Treatment, a local nonprofit counseling center that specifically addresses child sex-abuse cases.

"For children who have been very traumatized, going to court can be very hard on them, sometimes not worth it. Sometimes you do end up counseling the child about their courtroom experience in addition to the sexual abuse itself," Graff said.

"But each child is different. Each case is different. For some it offers some sense of closure, and lets them regain the sense of control they had lost at the hands of the abuser," Graff said.

One of the boys who was victimized by Pearson said he wanted to testify because he "just didn't want him to hurt anyone else."

Graff said that kids respond well to having information and input in the case. "The key for the child is to be well-prepared. Not coached, but prepared. Prosecutors take them into the courtroom beforehand and explain how it will work. As counselors, we ask them to talk about their worst fears about the court, and we address that beforehand," Graff said.

Often, the biggest fear is that the defendant will go free, chase them down and hurt them again, Graff said. "I know my son is keeping a lot of those fears inside. He's acting tougher than he used to. I think this is the only way to put it behind us, to get him in prison, to go to court," the mother of one of Pearson's victims said. "So here we are."

One by one, the boys from the baseball fields in northwest Las Vegas marched into a county courtroom last week, took the stand, and were asked to identify their abuser.

Each child pointed to Garen Pearson and described his gray sweater. Then each one told the story -- some timidly and with tears, others stoically -- of how the grown man performed oral sex on them, how he told them that it made their "special" relationship better.

The jury decided in six hours of deliberation that no, the boys did not consent to sex acts with Pearson, that yes, the man is guilty of sexual assault in addition to various counts of lewdness. Case closed.

But the story has taken on a life of its own: It has been featured in media from Sports Illustrated to "Oprah."

One parent said someone in her son's school found out about it, and her son became ashamed.

"The other boy said something to my son, and (my son) denied having anything to do with it," she said.

"We moved out of our neighborhood specifically because of the incident," she said. "Garen did (the sex acts) in front of the house. I didn't want (my son) going past that every day. Garen was in our house. I didn't want him thinking about that every day. Now we've moved, and he's moved on and made new friends. If I can make it easier that's the best I can do."

"The reason I did it (took the boy to court) is I want other parents to realize that it can happen anywhere. We're not immune to it. I was always one of those parents who said it couldn't happen to me," she said.

Another parent said, "I was proud of all the guys. And of the parents. We all could have easily backed out, but then this guy would be out there."

"I'm happy because he's put away and he can't do it no more," said a 13-year-old victim after the verdict.

As for his own life, the boy said, "Sometimes my days are normal, and some days I have ups and downs." But overall, he said, he feels "relief."

archive