Karampal Singh Nakai

**Karampal Singh Nakai** is an unaired suspected predator featured in the Riverside, California edition of **To Catch A Predator.**

## Sting

On January 3, 2006, Karampal Singh Nakai, who was 20 years old at the time, engaged in a chat with a person he believed to be a 12-year-old girl, but who was actually a decoy from Perverted Justice named Coleen. Coleen, who was located in Michigan, joined a California regional chat room under the screen name dark\_dana\_666, and it was in this chat room that Nakai contacted her. During their chat, Nakai inquired about the size of Coleen's ex-boyfriend's genitalia, to which she responded that his penis was less than seven inches. In turn, Nakai claimed that his own penis measured nine inches, prompting Coleen to express disbelief, stating that she had never seen one that big. Nakai then suggested showing Coleen his penis through his webcam, following which he sent her an image of his erect genitalia. Subsequently, Nakai asked Coleen if she would like to see his penis and if she would perform oral sex on him. However, Coleen expressed her reluctance, citing the small size of her mouth and the anticipated pain.

Nakai then asked if she would be interested in "riding" his penis, to which Coleen again expressed her apprehension about the pain involved. Nakai persisted, claiming that she would enjoy it. Furthermore, he asked Coleen if she was looking at his genitalia again and if she was touching herself. Nakai requested to speak with Coleen on the phone, but she declined, citing her phone being on charge and her mother possibly overhearing the conversation. In the meantime, Nakai sent Coleen pornographic images of a naked woman by turning his webcam towards his computer monitor. As their chat continued, Nakai expressed his arousal and mentioned his intent to masturbate while thinking about Coleen. Coleen informed Nakai that she would remain online, to which he responded that he would masturbate later. Nakai then asked Coleen about the presence of pubic hair on her genitals, to which she replied in the affirmative, prompting Nakai to express his approval. He further inquired if she liked it when someone performed oral sex on her, to which Coleen admitted that she had never tried it and asked if it would be painful. Nakai replied that it wouldn't hurt and expressed his willingness to use his fingers while performing oral sex.

Coleen expressed her admiration for the photograph in Nakai's online profile. In response, Nakai made a crude remark about a girl he had sex with, and again asked Coleen to call him on the telephone. Upon receiving this message, Coleen contacted Amanda, another member of Perverted Justice, through an online instant messenger. Amanda had the ability to alter her voice to sound like a young person and called Nakai. During the conversation, Nakai asked Amanda how she got her phone and made several more inappropriate sexually graphic remarks, to which Amanda responded ambiguously before abruptly ending the call. Later, Coleen apologized to Nakai in a private chat room for not being able to call him, saying that her mother called her at the same. Nakai responded that he was not upset and requested that Coleen call him the next day. He then asked Coleen about her sexual preferences, to which she responded that she does not engage in cybersex. Nakai asked Coleen about her sexual experiences with her ex-boyfriend, and Coleen shared that they had sex in her room while her mother was at work. Nakai responded by expressing his interest in having sex with Coleen, and she asked if he wanted to have sex with her. Coleen expressed her concern that it would be painful. Nakai suggested they engage in oral sex instead and asked if Coleen masturbated. She confirmed that she did and that she had orgasmed before. Nakai asked if she tasted it and Coleen said no. Nakai then told Coleen that he was going to orgasm and wanted to ejaculate on her. They made plans to talk on the phone the next day and said goodnight. The following day, Coleen apologized for not calling Nakai and he said it was okay because he was scared that she was too young.

Coleen refused to give Nakai her telephone number, mentioning that she was scared that her mother would hear the phone ringing. She suggested that Nakai could come to her house when her mother was at work, but Nakai said he was too scared. Nakai was surprised that Coleen would give him her address but not her phone number, and Coleen explained that her mother would be at work from 5:00 p.m. until 5:00 a.m. on the upcoming Saturday, so Nakai could come to her house around that time. Nakai was still hesitant and expressed concern about getting caught and going to jail. His worry then disappeared as he asked the decoy if her ex-boyfriend had taken her virginity and if she had performed oral sex on him. Coleen confirmed that she had and had not received oral sex from him. Nakai then expressed his desire to perform oral sex on her. On January 5, 2006, Coleen told Nakai that she couldn't call him as she had a friend over at her house. Nakai then asked for Coleen's address and she gave him an address in Mira Loma. Coleen asked Nakai not to come until Saturday and requested that he bring a scary or pornographic movie for them to watch. Nakai again expressed concerns about going to Coleen's house as she was a minor. Coleen suggested they watch The Matrix instead. Nakai responded with a sexually suggestive comment, suggesting they make their own movie. He then asked Coleen if she had a "naughty" dress and she replied that she had a short skirt. Nakai then asked her to leave it off. Coleen asked what Nakai would be wearing and he responded with "nothing." Coleen then asked if he would be nude while watching The Matrix and Nakai responded positively. Nakai and the decoy arranged for Nakai to come to the sting house on Saturday, January 7, 2006. Coleen asked Nakai to bring condoms as she was concerned about the possibility of getting pregnant. Nakai agreed and then sent Coleen a Webcam image of a woman with exposed breasts. He then showed Coleen pornographic images of a woman performing oral sex on a man and sent her a picture of his own penis. Coleen said she had to go and ended the chat conversation, and Nakai said he would buy condoms before signing off.

### Arrest

Investigator Peralta spotted Nakai sitting in a vehicle near the sting house on January 7 at around 3:00 p.m. Nakai had a clear view of the sting house from his parked vehicle and was seen munching on chili-cheese fries. After observing Nakai for around five to ten minutes, Investigator Peralta approached him and inquired about his presence in the area. Nakai replied that he was just having lunch and didn't live in the vicinity nor knew anyone around. Investigator Peralta then requested Nakai to exit the vehicle and permitted to search it, to which Nakai consented. During the search, Investigator Peralta found directions to the sting house in the center console but did not come across any condoms or pornographic material on Nakai or his vehicle.

## Aftermath

Nakai was originally charged with one felony count of attempted lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age, two felony counts of attempted harmful matter sent with intent of seduction of a minor, and one felony count of attempted oral copulation with a minor under 14 years of age and more than a 10 year age difference between victim and offender. His bail was set at $50,000. In a hearing held in May 2006, Heidi Chebahtah, an investigator with the district attorney's office, testified and confirmed that the internet chat log records revealed that Nakai had engaged in conversations about engaging in sexual activity such as intercourse and oral sex, and had also sent pictures of his genitalia to a person he believed to be a 12-year-old girl. Nakai's defense attorney, Louisa Pensanti, referred to the charges against her client as a "manufactured crime." Pensanti pointed out that her client had never left his car and argued that for an "attempt" to occur, affirmative steps must be taken, which she claimed were not present in the case.

### Testimony

During the trial, the prosecutor questioned Coleen and read aloud significant portions of the transcripts from the Yahoo! chat dialogues. These transcripts, however, were not formally introduced as evidence in the trial. Instead, the prosecutor relied on Coleen's testimony about the contents of the chat logs to establish their relevance to the case. Coleen provided testimony regarding her online communications with Nakai. She explained the chat room where she communicated with him, as well as her decision to send Amanda an instant message regarding the possibility of telephoning Nakai. Additionally, Amanda took the stand and testified about her phone conversation with Nakai. She was able to provide testimony from both her recollection of the call and from the notes she took afterward. Amanda testified that Nakai asked her age and when she confirmed she was 12 years old, he proceeded to make inappropriate sexual comments such as asking if she would "lick it" and inquiring if she liked what she saw.

### Legal proceedings

In another motion, Nakai sought to have all evidence connected to the Yahoo! chat logs concealed. He stated that because California law requires both parties' consent before a communication can be recorded, Coleen broke the law by secretly recording their private internet discussions. Nakai argued that the evidence should not be admitted since he did not authorize the recording of the chat logs. Nakai also made the case that given their intimate and sexual nature, the Yahoo! chat logs should be regarded as confidential conversations. He underlined that unlike emails or text messages, chat logs are deleted as chat participants leave the chat windows, making them distinct from those types of messages. Nakai's motion to exclude evidence pertaining to the Yahoo! chat conversations was supported by two key justifications. The initial response was that while it is conceivable to save Yahoo! chat conversations, it is not normally something a sane person would do. Nakai thought it reasonable to think the chat conversation would be kept private and not recorded because of this. The accusation of obscene and lascivious behavior did not match the requirements for a crime of violence, according to Nakai's second defense. In addition, there was no actual child involved in the case, since Nakai emphasized that the allegation was for an attempted rather than a completed conduct. As a result, he claimed that the exception for serious felonies did not apply.

During a hearing on a move for the suppression of evidence on May 30, 2008, the prosecutor made a case for the inclusion of chat logs obtained from Yahoo! Messenger. The prosecutor used a portion of Yahoo!'s chat privacy policy to bolster their case, stating that the business may share user information to look into unlawful activity, potential risks to physical safety, suspected fraud, or violations of their terms of service. Additionally, the prosecutor drew attention to the fact that the policy makes it very apparent that Yahoo! Messenger is not entirely private and that chats may be recorded or shared with others. The policy also notes that users have the option to print, archive, and store messages. Additionally, it states that even if a user chooses not to save their messages, the other party with whom they are interacting may still opt to do so. Based on these provisions of Yahoo!'s privacy policy, the prosecutor claimed that Nakai had essentially given his or her approval for the conversation logs to be recorded and used as evidence. As a counterargument throughout the hearing, the prosecutor argued that the Nakai could not have had a justifiable expectation of privacy while participating in a Yahoo! conversation. The prosecutor contended that the act of writing down messages inherently undermines any claim to privacy. Nakai responded by asserting that, despite the fact that it is theoretically possible to save Yahoo! chat conversations, a typical person would not assume that anyone would do so. Given that the chat conversation was not meant for public consumption, the Nakai argued that it was reasonable to anticipate that it would stay private.

The trial court rejected Nakai's motion to suppress evidence related to the Yahoo! chat dialogues. The court initially found that the motion was untimely. When examining the merits of the motion, the court first considered whether Nakai had a reasonable expectation of privacy when participating in the chat dialogues. The court determined that a communication sent via the internet was fundamentally different from a telephone call. It concluded that the private communication protected under the law was likely intended to be the type of communication that occurs over a telephone. In contrast, internet communications, such as emails and instant messages, are sent in writing and are thus recorded. Therefore, the court reasoned that no one with knowledge of these technologies could reasonably expect privacy. The court also noted that when chatting with strangers over the internet, a person has no means of verifying the true identity of the other party. Therefore, the court found it "entirely unrealistic and irrational to believe" that a stranger on the internet would hold a communication in confidence. The court concluded that Nakai did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when participating in the Yahoo! chat dialogues. Alternatively, the court found that if Nakai did have an expectation of privacy, then attempted lewd or lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 qualified as a violent felony, and thus, the chat dialogues would fall under the violent felony exception.

## Further legal battles and sentence

In the closing statements, the prosecution urged the jury to convict Nakai on two counts of attempted harmful matter sent with the intent of seduction of a minor. The prosecution cited Nakai's actions of sending Coleen live webcam footage of him masturbating and sending her live webcam footage of a naked female performing oral sex on a male as evidence of his guilt. Pensanti attempted to reduce the severity of the two felony charges of attempted harmful matter sent with intent of seduction of a minor to a less serious misdemeanor charge of attempted distribution of harmful matter to a minor. Pensanti argued that there was not enough evidence to clearly establish her client's intention to seduce the minor since he did not possess condoms or approach the sting house. The trial court rejected the request to instruct the jury on the lesser offense, reasoning that the Yahoo! chat dialogue provided substantial evidence that Nakai's sole intent was to seduce the decoy. The court noted that Nakai repeatedly discussed engaging in sexual intercourse with the decoy in the chat dialogue and that no evidence was presented to suggest that Nakai had a different intent.

During his closing argument in court, Nakai presented the defense that he was participating in a "role-playing" game, where he claiming that he knowingly engaged in conversation with an adult who was pretending to be a child. On June 6, 2008, a jury convicted Nakai on two counts of attempted harmful matter sent with the intent of seduction of a minor, but found him not guilty of the other two felony charges he was facing. On August 29, 2008, Nakai was sentenced to serve 270 days in county jail, but was given credit for 129 days of time served, to be served on consecutive weekends. Additionally, he was ordered to complete three years of probation, register as a sexual offender for the rest of his life, and was required to pay various fines, fees, and restitutions.

### Appeal

In April 2010, Nakai filed an appeal claiming that the trial court had made an error by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted distribution of harmful matter to a minor. Nakai argued that the evidence regarding his intent to seduce was questionable and that the lesser included offense instruction should have been given. The appeals court noted that Nakai purposefully sent explicit images of his erect penis to Coleen with the primary intent of sexually arousing himself, as supported by his orgasmic response. Moreover, the appeals court also suggested that Nakai shared these images with Coleen to seduce her, as he inquired if Coleen was touching herself and made comments about her enjoying sex with him. The communication log on Yahoo! shows that Nakai was merely acting for his own amusement and to seduce the dummy. The appeals court agreed with the trial court's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to clear Nakai of the more serious allegation but not the lesser one because the evidence showed that her combined intentions of arousal and seduction were evident.

Nakai argued that the trial court erred when it denied his move to exclude the evidence from the Yahoo! chat sessions. The appeals court disagreed, stating that it was appropriate for the trial court to reject the request. They came to the conclusion that the messages exchanged during the chat sessions were not secure and were not private. Coleen maintained the chat logs on purpose, there was no question about that, and there was no proof that Nakai had given her permission to keep them. Finally, Nakai argued that because his criminal activity occurred in San Bernardino County rather than Riverside County, his trial there should not have taken place. Nakai's entry into the sting home, according to the prosecution, was an attempt to engage in lewd or lascivious behavior, which happened in Riverside County, where the sting house was situated. Therefore, Riverside County was the proper venue for Nakai's prosecution because he was accused of an offense that occurred there.

### Second appeal

On May 17, 2010, Nakai submitted a petition for review to the California Supreme Court, in which he contended that his email exchanges should have been safeguarded by a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that the trial court should have excluded his internet communications from evidence. Nakai also maintained that the trial court was mistaken in excluding recordings of confidential conversations that lacked the consent of all parties. Additionally, he argued that the trial court did not provide a jury instruction for a lesser-included offense, despite the existence of substantial evidence that could have resulted in a guilty verdict. Moreover, Nakai claimed that Riverside County was an improper venue for the trial. On July 21, 2010, the California Supreme Court dismissed the petition without explanation. Nakai filed a federal habeas petition on July 20, 2011, alleging that his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was infringed when the trial court refused to instruct the jury on a lesser-included offense. Additionally, he argued that the trial court's failure to give the lesser-included offense instruction violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

Nakai also claimed that the denial of his statutory right to have confidential communications was arbitrary and violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Furthermore, he contended that the admission of his confidential communications by the trial court violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures. The petition filed by Nakai was dismissed by the California Supreme Court due to failure to exhaust state remedies, which was supported by the respondents' motion. After all parties consented, the matter was brought before the assigned magistrate judge, and upon completion of the briefing, a decision was made. It was discovered that the petition was partially or fully unexhausted. The California Supreme Court noted that Nakai's claim, which could have been potentially exhausted, was not permitted to be presented in federal courts without pursuing litigation in state courts first. Moreover, Nakai did not provide sufficient evidence to justify a stay. Consequently, his petition was rejected, and the case was dismissed without prejudice.

## References

1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 https://casetext.com/case/people-v-nakai
2. ↑ http://www.perverted-justice.com/booking/bookingcollage.html
3. ↑ https://groups.google.com/g/alt.true-crime/c/NxwIWHdR0yw?pli=1
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/5:2011cv01139/507569/16/
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 http://www.perverted-justice.com/?con=gavy\_nakai