Mass court data shows discrepancies in prostitution charges

A Massachusetts local government employee was caught in a sting operation this year when he offered to pay an undercover officer for oral sex. But during a private court hearing in April, a lawyer convinced the official not to press charges of soliciting prostitution, citing the man’s military service and work history. So his name was never released.

In other hearings this month, the results were different for three women accused of prostituting themselves in 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, officials approved criminal charges against the women for “engaging in sexual intercourse for payment.”

Such disparities in how courts handle prostitution cases in Massachusetts often tend to be harsher on sellers than buyers, according to data collected and analyzed by WBUR.

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

Confidential “show cause” hearings are designed to help courts weed out minor criminal cases in which there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute or that can be resolved informally between the parties. Suspects are usually entitled to these hearings if they’ve been charged with a misdemeanor but haven’t been arrested for a felony. Officials are supposed to dismiss cases if police can’t produce enough evidence to show there’s probable cause to charge someone with a crime. They also have the authority to dismiss a case if they can facilitate an alternative resolution.

The hearings usually don’t attract much attention. They’re not listed on court calendars. And the documents and hearings are usually closed to the public.

But a high-profile federal investigation has raised questions about whether some people receive preferential treatment in such cases. The U.S. attorney’s office in Massachusetts said last year it had uncovered a prostitution ring in Greater Boston and eastern Virginia that targeted elected officials, corporate executives, government contractors, military officers and professors. Federal prosecutors have so far charged three people in connection with the operation and have provided information about the clients to local officials, including the Massachusetts police.

Cambridge police have charged 28 clients but have not released their names, occupations or other details.

Cambridge District Court Judge Sharon Shelfer Casey ruled in December that the hearings should be open because of the unusually high level of public interest in the case, but she declined to release the court records to WBUR. A state Supreme Court judge upheld that decision.

Most of the defendants appealed that ruling to the full court, arguing that the trials should also be held privately to avoid unfairly tarnishing the reputations of people who may never be formally charged. WBUR, the Boston Globe and NBC10 Boston have asked the court to make both the hearings and the court records public. The SJC is scheduled to hear arguments in the case on Sept. 9, and the court is expected to issue a ruling early next year.

Some sex worker advocates say the names of all clients should be publicly available to discourage people from supporting the sex trade.

“This is the only way we could actually significantly reduce demand,” said Desiree Demos, executive director of the EVA Center, a Boston-based nonprofit that works to end prostitution and help people exit the sex trade.

Demos said the system too often lenient toward men who hire women for sex while punishing women.

Court records obtained by WBUR show that most of the proposed prostitution charges brought by police at trials were against men. However, officials approved only 42% of the charges brought against men — compared with 70% of the charges brought against women.

In most cases, men buy sex and women sell it, Demos said.

“You both have sex, right?” Demos said. “But for some reason, the woman is considered a criminal.”

She said the difference in treatment was unfair: “We still put men’s livelihoods ahead of women’s rights.”

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

The court also took a broader look at all prostitution charges during the same period as the WBUR analysis, including cases in which suspects were arrested and bypassed official interviews. It found that police and prosecutors in some parts of the state were seeking mostly charges related to selling sex, not paying for sex. For example, authorities filed 100 criminal cases in Woburn District Court on charges related to selling sex, but not a single charge related to paying for sex.

For example, Woburn police successfully prosecuted two women this year after they responded to a graphic ad and met them at a hotel. While there, they encountered 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.

Court data also shows that court officials dismissed 82% of potential charges when the defendant had a lawyer — nearly twice as many when the suspect represented himself.

Anthony Benedetti, general counsel of the Public Counsel Services Committee, which represents indigent defendants, said everyone deserves a lawyer at trial — not just wealthy people.

“This is just one example of the system not being equal,” Benedetti said. “If you have a lawyer, you have a huge, huge advantage.”

A court review found that only a small number of defendants in prostitution cases were represented by lawyers. More than 9 in 10 were self-represented (or did not attend court hearings), WBUR found. Almost all of the defendants who had lawyers were men.

Unlike many other court proceedings, poor people do not have the right to a court-appointed attorney at Massachusetts pretrial deposition. Under current law, people only have the right to an attorney if a court issues formal criminal charges.

But by then it’s too late, critics say — the defendants already have criminal records. Demos, the Boston attorney, says the charges could be devastating for women accused of prostitution, even if they ultimately avoid prison.

“They can’t get housing,” Demos said. “They’re denied work. That’s the most stigmatizing accusation you can make.”

Because these trials typically take place behind closed doors, there is little information in public records about why officials declined to prosecute so many cases against the men or those with lawyers.

The only details about a city employee who paid for oral sex, for example, come from the website of his lawyer, Stephen Neyman. And that website does not include the name, title or city where the client works.

Neyman’s firm regularly boasts online about his victories in court hearings against court officials, including this case and another in 2022 in which a man offered an undercover officer $20 for oral sex at 1 a.m. in an area known for prostitution. In both cases, Neyman’s firm said it convinced officials not to file criminal complaints against the men.

Neyman, who did not respond to requests for comment, is currently representing four people involved in high-profile Cambridge prostitution cases who are fighting to keep their cases secret.