Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board
84 Mass. App. Ct. 537
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- In 1997 the plaintiff pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offenses against his daughter and was sentenced to 8–12 years plus 12 years probation; he does not dispute his status as a convicted sex offender.
- In May 2008 the Sex Offender Registry Board (Board) preliminarily classified him as Level 3 (high risk) and he requested a de novo hearing; hearing occurred November 20, 2008 before hearing examiner Tyson Lynch.
- The hearing examiner issued a decision classifying him as Level 3; the plaintiff sought judicial review in Superior Court and moved for expert funds to retain mitigation/recidivism evidence.
- After earlier remand limited to the expert-funds issue, a successor examiner again denied funds for lack of specificity; the Superior Court later affirmed the Board’s classification and denial of funds.
- It was later revealed the original hearing examiner had made multiple public Facebook posts during the relevant period that suggested hostility or bias toward sex offenders and showed unprofessional commentary about hearings and attorneys.
- The Appeals Court concluded the examiner’s public posts raised serious doubts about impartiality, vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded for a new classification hearing; the denial of expert funds was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hearing examiner was impartial (due process) | Lynch’s Facebook posts show prejudicial predisposition and denial of an impartial proceeding | No evidence of bias in the written decision; hearing was fair on the record | Vacated Board decision and remanded for a new hearing due to reasonable doubt about examiner impartiality |
| Whether substantial evidence supported Level 3 classification | Examiner’s findings lack adequate support (argued) | Classification decision otherwise supported by evidence | Court noted substantial-evidence support apart from bias but did not decide outcome on remand |
| Whether denial of expert funds was an abuse of discretion | Plaintiff needed funds to present expert evidence (mental illness, age and recidivism) | Motion lacked specificity; funds unnecessary for issues plaintiff later waived | Affirmed denial of expert funds for lack of specificity; age/recidivism argument waived for failing to raise before agency |
| Whether prior remand/denial-to-vacate rulings should be revisited based on new-bias evidence | New evidence of examiner’s bias requires vacatur of prior affirmances | Board opposed reopening; argued no prejudice to plaintiff | Motion to vacate earlier denial reversed; matter remanded for new hearing before different examiner |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 452 Mass. 764 (2008) (standards for awarding expert funds and procedural protections at de novo hearings)
- Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 447 Mass. 768 (2006) (due process protections in sex-offender classification proceedings)
- Police Commr. of Boston v. Municipal Ct. of the W. Roxbury Dist., 368 Mass. 501 (1975) (art. 29 requires impartial adjudicators and extends to hearing officers)
- Raymond v. Bd. of Registration in Med., 387 Mass. 708 (1982) (no due process violation where allegedly biased board member did not participate in decision)
- D'Amour v. Bd. of Registration in Dentistry, 409 Mass. 572 (1991) (recusal limits prevent due process violation where biased member did not preside or deliberate)
- Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 456 Mass. 612 (2010) (persuasive discussion that age/recidivism data may be introduced without expert funding)