Why did a serial child molester only get 35 years? His lawyer was a creep

Carl Nathaniel Fredricksen faced a possible prison sentence of 342 years for child molestation and photographing more than 14 children, including his two sons, engaging in sex acts with him and each other.

Instead, Fredricksen, 37, a private tutor in the Valley, could see the light of day as a free man if he survives prison.

As a result of a plea deal, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Kiefer on Jan. 26 dismissed all but five of the 41 counts stacked against Fredricksen for child molestation, sexual exploitation of a minor and furnishing obscene material to minors, among other charges.

Waiving trial, Fredricksen pleaded guilty to five counts: two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, one count of attempted child molestation, one count of attempted sexual conduct with a minor under 15 and one count of attempted exploitation of a minor.

Kiefer sentenced him to 35 years in prison.

When Peoria police arrested Fredricksen in July 2020, they reportedly found thousands of hours of video recordings of child pornography, featuring Fredricksen and the minors, stored on his computer.

The abuse spanned more than three years and involved boys and girls between the ages of 11 and 17, according to court records. Some of the minors were friends of Fredricksen's sons or children placed in Fredricksen's care by their parents.

Court records also include a letter from Fredricksen to a female friend in which he admitted to being a "bisexual pedophile"  who was "attracted to pubescent children of either gender." Fredricksen rationalized his crimes in the letter, denying he was a rapist and insisting that "nothing I've done has harmed anyone."

Given the enormity of his crimes, why did the Maricopa County Attorney's Office cut a deal with Fredricksen instead of trying him on all 41 counts and seeking the maximum punishment?

The answer may lie in Fredricksen's attorney.

Fredricksen represented himself. The court assigned him an advisory counsel, but Fredricksen wrote his legal briefs and insisted on his right to personally cross-examine his adolescent victims.

In June, Jamie Balson, an attorney for 10 of Fredricksen's victims, moved for the court to prohibit Fredricksen from cross-examining the children.

Balson cited an Arizona law, passed in 2021, which allowed a judge to bar direct questioning by a defendant representing themselves if the court found that the cross-examination "would prevent the minor victim from being able to reasonably communicate."

In his response to the motion, Fredricksen stood firm, referring to state and federal court precedents upholding a defendant's right under the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment to represent themselves and confront their accusers.

In another court filing, Fredricksen claimed that he did not want to "revictimize anyone by viewing the evidence with the fine-tooth comb necessary to properly defend myself." But, he added, if the case was not resolved before trial, he would have no choice.

In that same pleading, Fredricksen asked for a deal sentence of 20 years. But the county attorney's office stuck to an offer of 35 years, which Fredricksen accepted.

As a result, Kiefer never had to rule on the thorny issue of Fredricksen cross-examining his child victims.

Chris Simcox wanted to question his child victims, too

During a Feb. 7 press conference, County Attorney Rachel Mitchell briefly mentioned Fredricksen's five guilty pleas and 35-year sentence. She didn't mention the plea deal, nor was she asked about the 36 dismissed counts.

A spokesperson for Mitchell's office, Karla Navarette, later told Phoenix New Times that one factor in the county attorney's decision to offer a plea deal was the prospect of Fredricksen cross-examining his victims.

Interestingly, both Fredricksen's and Balson's court filings mentioned the 2016 Phoenix trial of ex-Minuteman leader Chris Simcox for child molestation. Like Fredricksen, Simcox represented himself and sought to personally interrogate his child victims, including one of his daughters.

Prosecutors objected. Ultimately, Simcox dropped his bid to question his minor victims, allowing his court-appointed advisory counsel to question them on his behalf.

Simcox was, however, able to interrogate a minor daughter whom he did not molest and a grown daughter whom he allegedly molested in her youth. The jury convicted Simcox on two counts of child molestation and one count of furnishing porn to a minor. He was sentenced to 19.5 years in prison.

Inside the mind of a predator

Katherine Manning, a former senior attorney advisor with the U.S. Department of Justice, studied the issue of child predators who represent themselves and attempt to question their victims in court. She wrote about the phenomenon in 2022 for the Brooklyn Law Review, "Protecting the Constitution while Protecting Victims: Challenges to Pro Se Cross Examination."

"It's really hard to get a sense of how common it is," Manning told New Times. "But I spoke to a couple of the larger prosecutors' offices in the country, and everyone had examples of it."

Manning, who is based in Washington, D.C., said she wrote the paper because she found that many prosecutors believed that the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause was absolute. She wanted to demonstrate that the right of defendants representing themselves to interrogate their victims could be challenged.

She said the right of defendants to confront their accusers can be restricted if the court makes a "particularized finding" that cross-examination by the defendant will cause further trauma to the victim.

Doesn't this offer a playbook of sorts for the pedophile who gets caught? Represent yourself, demand to cross-examine the victims and you might score a better plea deal?

Manning said it was "one of those strange areas where it is neither in the victim's interest nor the defendant's" for the defendant to represent themself. The defendant would be better off having a lawyer represent them, and the victim is subject to being re-victimized.

She added that defendants want to "keep the victims from testifying at all" or "they want one more chance to harass and control."

And it's not just child molesters. "It's domestic violence abusers, it's stalkers, it's rapists," she added.

Manning said these predators often operate under the delusion that if they can question their victims directly, it would help their victims "understand that this really was about love or whatever."

In one pleading, Fredricksen wrote that he intended to present at an evidentiary hearing "picture and video evidence of interactions" between himself and his victims at an evidentiary hearing. He was confident that the court would agree that the photos and video "will demonstrate a complete lack of fear or discomfort" on the part of the victims.

And in a letter to a friend, Fredricksen revealed more about his twisted thinking. "Not only do I have a porn collection that's holy-fucking-illegal (sic), I've done things with kids before that NEVER hurt a soul but are far from socially acceptable," he wrote.

Balson declined to comment on the case.

A presentence report by Maricopa County Adult Probation Department noted the comments of some parents of the victims.

One father said he would leave sentencing to the court's discretion.

The mother of another minor victim told the department that the plea agreement appeared lenient.

"But if it prevents the trauma of a trial, then she can accept it," the report said.