SJC: Clerk magistrate must answer why court hearings for alleged sex ring clients should be public

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Cambridge District Court Clerk-Magistrate Sharon Shelfer Casey has until Friday to respond to questions from the Supreme Judicial Court about why the magistrate hearings of alleged clients of a Massachusetts sex ring catering to prominent clientele should be held in public.

In a decision and order of remand filed Tuesday, Supreme Judicial Court Associate Justice Frank M. Gaziano posed several questions for Shelfer Casey, including “What is the public interest that justified opening the presumptively closed show cause hearing?”

“The criminal charges arise out of a highly publicized Federal investigation into a multi-state prostitution ring,” Gaziano wrote in his order Tuesday. “At issue in this petition is whether the clerk-magistrate abused her discretion by (1) allowing public access to presumptively closed show cause hearings or (2) denying the release of applications for criminal complaint in advance of the public show cause hearings.”

Gaziano further wrote, “Here, review of the clerk-magistrate’s decisions is hampered by the absence of factual findings... The matter is therefore remanded to provide the clerk-magistrate an opportunity to articulate a basis for finding that public interest outweighed privacy rights in one instance but not the other.”

Elected officials, doctors, lawyers, professors, accountants, and military officers were reportedly among a group of “high-end” clients who paid for the illegal sex services at various locations in Massachusetts and in Virginia.

A Cambridge police detective on Dec. 18, 2023 filed applications for criminal complaint against 28 people for sexual conduct with another person for a fee.

Attorneys for the alleged sex ring clients, only identified as “John Doe #1-17″ to date in court documents, are pushing to keep the court hearings private. The attorneys will then have the opportunity to respond to what the clerk magistrate says by Jan. 31, Gaziano wrote.

Shelfer Casey ruled in December that the court proceedings would be made public. In her Dec. 21, 2023 ruling, she wrote in part as it relates to this case, “The court has recognized the very limited exception where legitimate public interest overweighs the individuals’ privacy rights.”

Last Wednesday, Gaziano issued an interim order to stay the hearings, which had initially been scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. on Thursday, Jan. 18 over a three-day period in the Cambridge District Court.

“It is difficult to determine whether the clerk-magistrate abused her discretion because I cannot reconcile the conflicting orders on this record,” Gaziano wrote in his decision Tuesday. “The clerk-magistrate apparently determined, in the first instance, that this is one of the exceptional cases where a legitimate public interest outweighs the individual’s privacy rights to a closed show cause hearing. The clerk-magistrate did not make any specific finding of fact.”

“It is possible to infer ... that she determined the accused’s privacy rights were diminished by publicity generated prior to the hearings,” he wrote. “She did not, however, balance the public interest contained in the complaint allegations against privacy rights. Moreover, the decision appears to group the twenty-eight individuals together and did not consider each individual’s right of privacy.”

“In the second instance, the clerk-magistrate recited the privacy concerns embedded in Standard 5:02 that presumptively deny the public access to applications for complaint,” he wrote. “At the same time, however, she relied on the lack of a ‘tradition of public access to show cause hearings,’ in a case where she, the day prior, bucked that tradition by opening the show cause hearings to the public.”

Further in his decision Tuesday, Gaziano wrote, “John Doe #1-15, for their part, assert procedural due process protections to the non-disclosure of their identities prior to a probable cause determination. They also point out that the clerk-magistrate lumped the accused together -- failing to make individualized assessments of privacy interests. The decision to open the proceedings, they argue, ‘will turn ordinarily confidential show cause hearings into public walks of shame and humiliation before there is even a probable cause determination made to each individual.’”

“John Doe #16-17 contend that employment in one of the occupations identified in the United States Attorney’s press release, including service as an “elected official,” does not automatically create a legitimate public interest that outweighs the accused’s right to privacy,” Gaziano wrote. “The clerk-magistrate, they argue, is required to consider whether there is a ‘nexus between the alleged conduct and the performance of official duties.’”

It was unclear Tuesday when, or if, the public court hearings would be rescheduled. A response from the clerk-magistrate on the matter shall be filed on or before 4 p.m. Friday, Gaziano wrote.

No names on the client list will be released until probable cause has been found, officials have said.

Attorney discusses why the Boston sex ring client list remains a secret

Authorities in November arrested Han Lee, 41, of Cambridge; James Lee, 68, of California, and Junmyung Lee, 30, of Dedham, who are all accused of running a “sophisticated” commercial sex network in Watertown, Cambridge, and in Virginia, where buyers paid up to $600 per hour for a wide array of advertised sex acts.

“This commercial sex ring was built on secrecy and exclusivity catering to a wealthy and well-connected clientele,” Acting U.S. Attorney Josh Levy said in November.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available.

Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.

Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW

©2024 Cox Media Group