The Massachusetts high court ruled Thursday that preliminary hearings should be held in public for more than two dozen accused customers of a high-end sex ring, rejecting a request by some of the defendants to keep the initial proceedings secret.
The Supreme Judicial Court, however, also rejected a request from WBUR and other news outlets to make underlying documents in the case public before the hearings are held.
The case has received widespread publicity because federal prosecutors said the sex ring’s customers included elected officials, military officers, government contractors with security clearance and business executives. The prostitution ring allegedly operated brothels in least two locations in Massachusetts (Cambridge and Watertown) and in eastern Virginia near Washington, D.C. Prosecutors have not named any of the local defendants.
The proceedings could provide a rare window into an obscure part of the Massachusetts court system, where “show cause” hearings are held behind closed doors.
In Massachusetts, court clerks routinely hold such hearings in private to determine whether there is enough evidence to issue charges against people who have been accused of crimes but have not been arrested. All information about the cases is typically kept confidential unless clerks decide to issue charges.
In this case, however, Cambridge District Court Clerk Magistrate Sharon Shelfer Casey ruled the courts should make an exception and open up hearings for 28 alleged sex ring customers because of the public interest in the matter. That decision came after WBUR and other news organizations sued for access to the hearings and related documents last year.
WBUR, NBC10 Boston and The Boston Globe appealed the clerk’s decision to keep the documents confidential, arguing they were needed to correctly identify defendants and accurately report on the court proceedings.
At that point, many of the defendants’ lawyers also appealed the decision to open the hearings. They argued that holding the hearings in public could ruin the reputations of people who have yet to be charged with a crime.
A single Supreme Judicial Court justice initially upheld the clerk’s ruling and the full court did so on Thursday.
“The clerk-magistrate acted reasonably and within the proper scope of her discretion in deciding to grant public access to the show cause hearings,” the court found.
The SJC ruled there was no constitutional right to private hearings, giving the clerks discretion to hold public hearings in exceptional cases. But the court ruled that courts should modify the court rules to make sure defendants are notified and given a chance to respond to future requests to open hearings “in the interest of fairness and uniform treatment of the accused.”
The high court also ruled the clerk was within her discretion to withhold the underlying documents for now, saying there was a valid concern about releasing records before people accused of crimes have a chance to defend themselves in court. The justices also noted the records ultimately will be public if the clerk issues criminal charges against the defendants.
Federal prosecutors have separately sought charges against the organizers of the sex ring and referred the names of customers to local law enforcement in Massachusetts and Virginia. They have not charged the women accused of being paid for sex.
This article was originally published on WBUR.org.
Copyright 2024 WBUR