Appeals court hears challenge to Level 3 classification in John Doe case

At an oral argument before the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the appellant in John Doe v. Offender Registry Board asked the court to lower a Level 3 sex-offender classification or remand the case for a new classification hearing, arguing the hearing examiner improperly denied funds for an expert and relied on an evaluative "ultimate risk" opinion without live testimony.

The issue matters because a Level 3 classification triggers Internet dissemination of an offender's information and carries heightened public-safety consequences; the appellant said the record did not support the required clear-and-convincing showing of high risk.

Attorney Simara Hernandez, representing the appellant, told the panel that the board placed a 2020 evaluation into evidence that included results from physiological testing (PPG) and language noting the evaluator's view that the appellant "meets the criteria for pedophilic disorders" under the DSM-5. Hernandez argued those materials raised a clinical question beyond common knowledge and that the hearing examiner abused discretion by denying a motion for funds so the appellant could hire an expert to confirm or rebut the evaluator's…