Clerk is told to explain public hearings for brothel suspects

A single justice of the state’s highest court on Tuesday ordered a clerk-magistrate to provide factual findings about her decision to hold public hearings over whether there is enough evidence to support a request by police to bring criminal charges against 28 people suspected of buying sex from brothels in Cambridge and Watertown.

In a 10-page ruling, Supreme Judicial Court Justice Frank M. Gaziano said he needed more information from the clerk-magistrate before ruling on an appeal by 17 of the “John Does” who have argued that public “show cause” hearings would violate their privacy and bring them shame and embarrassment.

He ordered Cambridge District Court clerk-magistrate Sharon Shelfer Casey to answer questions about what the public interest is in opening the hearings to the public, and how she balanced that against the privacy rights of the 28 people who have been summoned to appear in court, but have not been arrested or publicly identified. He gave her until 4 p.m. Friday to respond.

The alleged client list remains private in the case of the brothel ring that had allegedly been operating out of luxury apartments in Cambridge, Watertown, and the Washington, D.C., suburbs. When federal authorities arrested three people in November on charges of operating the prostitution ring, they said elected officials, government contractors with security clearances, military officers, doctors, and lawyers were among hundreds of men who paid for sex at the brothels.

In December, acting US Attorney Joshua Levy said his office made it clear “there would be accountability for the buyers who fuel the commercial sex industry” and announced that a Homeland Security Investigations task force officer with the Cambridge Police Department had submitted applications for complaints with the Cambridge District Court against 28 “sex buyers.”

The hearings were initially slated to be held behind closed doors, but Casey ruled last month to open them to the public after The Boston Globe, WBUR, and NBC-10 filed appeals. She found that while such hearings are generally held behind closed doors, “the court has recognized the very limited exception where legitimate public interest overweighs the individuals’ privacy rights.”

However, Casey denied a media request for the applications police filed seeking criminal complaints against the 28 people, ruling they would not be made public unless she grants the request for criminal charges.

Gaziano wrote that one reason he wanted further information from the magistrate was that Casey had made “conflicting orders,” given that she cited public interest to open the hearings but wrote that the individuals’ privacy rights kept the applications for complaints private.

On Monday, Attorney Timothy R. Flaherty, who represents “John Does” 16 and 17, argued in an appeal to Gaziano that the public nature of his clients’ “activities, endeavors, and duties,” would mean their professional and personal lives would be “severely and irreparably harmed by a public airing of mere accusations that are unsupported by probable cause.” He argued that being an elected official, “does not create a legitimate public interest that outweighs the accused’s right of privacy.”

At the same time, attorneys for more than a dozen of the other “John Does” emphasized the low profiles of their clients in their push to keep the proceedings behind closed doors.

“The accused are entitled to privacy at this early stage in the proceedings and public hearings should remain the exception rather than the rule,” wrote the attorneys.

In earlier filings, lawyers for a group of 13 “John Does” said one of them is an attorney “who does not work for the government,” one is a doctor “working at a public hospital,” and one is a scientist “without ties to the government.”

The “show cause” hearings were triggered because there were no arrests at the time of the alleged crimes, and the charges are misdemeanors, according to a Cambridge police spokesperson.

A 2008 rule issued by the chief justice of the Massachusetts trial court says that “presumptively, show cause hearings are private and closed to the public,” but people or organizations may petition for public access. “If the application is one of special public significance and the magistrate concludes that legitimate public interests outweigh the accused’s right of privacy, the hearing may be opened to the public and should be conducted in the formal atmosphere of a courtroom,” according to the rule.

The secret hearings have been controversial, with critics complaining of a lack of transparency and accountability. In 2018, a Boston Globe Spotlight report detailed a lack of oversight and inconsistent treatment of defendants in the closed door proceedings. A clerk-magistrate, who is not required to have a law degree and in many cases doesn’t, presides over the hearings and decides whether to toss out a case or keep it moving. In 2019, the Supreme Judicial Court ordered the courts to record the hearings and keep demographic data about those who face potential charges.