Mass. court data shows disparities in prostitution charges

A local government worker in Massachusetts was caught this year in a sting operation when he offered to pay an undercover officer for oral sex. But in a private court hearing in April, a lawyer persuaded the clerk not to issue criminal solicitation charges, citing the man’s military service and job history. So his name never became public.

At other hearings that month, the results were different for three women accused of prostitution at separate Woburn hotels. Unlike the man accused of offering to pay for sex, the women did not have lawyers to represent them. And in all three cases, clerks approved criminal charges against the women for "engaging in sexual conduct for a fee.”

Such disparities are common in how courts handle prostitution cases in Massachusetts, according to data obtained and analyzed by WBUR, with justice often meted out more harshly for sellers than buyers.

Court data on more than 200 criminal clerk-magistrate hearings from 2020 to 2022 in Massachusetts shows that clerks were nearly twice as likely to dismiss cases against men as compared to women. People who hired a lawyer — mostly men — were also twice as likely to avoid charges.

The confidential “show cause” hearings are intended to help courts weed out minor criminal cases where there’s insufficient evidence to bring charges or those that can be resolved informally among the parties. Suspects are typically entitled to these hearings if they have been accused of a misdemeanor but were not arrested for the crime. Clerks are supposed to dismiss cases if police cannot produce enough evidence to show there is probable cause to charge someone with violating the law. They also have discretion to dismiss a case if they can  facilitate an alternative resolution.

The hearings usually draw little scrutiny. They aren't listed in public court calendars. And the documents and hearings are normally closed to the public.

But a high-profile federal investigation has prompted questions about whether some people get preferential treatment in these kinds of cases. The U.S. attorney’s office for Massachusetts last year said it uncovered a prostitution ring in Greater Boston and eastern Virginia, with clients that included elected officials, business executives, government contractors, military officers and professors. Federal prosecutors have so far charged three people with running the operation and referred information on clients to local officials, including police in Massachusetts.

Cambridge police requested charges against 28 of the customers, but have not released their names, occupations or other details.

Cambridge District Court Clerk Magistrate Sharon Shelfer Casey ruled in December that the hearings should be open because of the unusual amount of public interest in the case, but declined to release the court records to WBUR. A single justice of the state's Supreme Judicial Court upheld that decision.

Most of the defendants appealed that ruling to the full court, arguing the hearings should be held in private as well to avoid unfairly tarnishing the reputations of people who might never be formally charged. In turn, WBUR, the Boston Globe and NBC10 Boston asked the court to open both the hearings and court records to the public. The SJC is slated to hear arguments on the issue Sept. 9, and the court is expected to issue a ruling by early next year.

Some advocates for sex workers argue all the names of buyers should be public to discourage people from fueling the sex trade.

"That's the one way that we actually could make a significant dent on demand," said Desiree Demos, executive director at the EVA Center, a Boston nonprofit that wants to end prostitution and help people leave the sex trade.

Demos said the system too often goes easy on men hiring women for sex, while punishing the women.

The court data obtained by WBUR shows a majority of the proposed charges brought by police for prostitution at the hearings were against men. But clerks approved only 42% of the charges against men — compared to 70% of the cases against women.

In most cases, men are buying sex, while women are selling it, said Demos.

"You are both engaging in sexual acts, right?" Demos said. "But for some reason, a woman is considered a criminal."

She said the difference in treatment is unfair: “We continue to prioritize the livelihood of a man over the rights of women.”

Court spokeswoman Jennifer Donahue said the Trial Court Department of Research and Planning conducted its own analysis of prostitution cases after questions from WBUR. The court’s analysis found clerks were more likely to issue charges associated with selling sex than paying for sex.

The court also took a broader look at all prostitution charges in the same period as WBUR's analysis, including cases where suspects were arrested and bypassed the clerk hearings. It found police and prosecutors in some parts of the state mainly sought charges associated with selling sex, rather than paying for sex. For instance, authorities filed 100 criminal cases in Woburn District Court for a charge associated with selling sex, but didn't seek a single charge there for paying for sex.

In one instance, Woburn police successfully sought charges this year against two women after responding to a lurid ad and meeting them at a hotel. While there, they ran into a man who admitted he was there to meet a prostitute. Investigators said they told the man he was free to go. Woburn police did not respond to a request for comment.

The court data also shows clerks dismissed 82% of the potential charges when the defendant had a lawyer, nearly double the figure when suspects represented themselves.

Anthony Benedetti, chief counsel of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, which represents indigent defendants, said everyone deserves a lawyer at the hearings — not just people with money.

"This is just one example of how the system isn't equal," Benedetti said. "If you have a lawyer, you have a big, big advantage."

The court's analysis noted only a small number of defendants in prostitution cases were represented by attorneys. More than 9 in 10 people represented themselves (or did not attend the hearings), WBUR found. Almost all the defendants who did have lawyers were men.

Unlike in many other court proceedings, poor people are not entitled to a court-appointed attorney at Massachusetts show-cause hearings. Under current law, people are only eligible for an attorney once the court issues formal criminal charges.

But by then, it’s too late, critics say — the defendants now have a criminal record. Demos, the Boston advocate, says the charges can be devastating for women accused of prostitution, even if they ultimately avoid jail.

"They're not able to get housing," Demos said. "They're denied from jobs. This is the most stigmatizing charge that you can really have."

Because these hearings are normally behind closed doors, there is little information in the public record about why clerks declined to issue charges in so many cases against men or people with attorneys.

The only details about the municipal worker who paid for oral sex, for instance, come from the website for his lawyer, Stephen Neyman. And that site does not list the client’s name, title, or the city where he works.

Neyman’s firm regularly touts his victories in criminal clerk magistrate hearings online, including that case and another from 2022 where a man offered an undercover police officer $20 for oral sex at 1 a.m. in an area known for prostitution. In both cases, Neyman’s firm said it convinced the clerks not to issue criminal complaints against the men.

Neyman, who did not respond to requests for comment, now represents four of the buyers in the high-profile Cambridge prostitution cases who are fighting to keep their cases secret.