Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Registry Classification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court reviews registry classification tied to alleged deviant sexual interest and hearsay; appellant faults surrogate expert reasoning
Summary
The Appeals Court heard arguments in John Doe v. Offender Registry Board (24P188) about whether the hearing examiner permissibly found a deviant sexual interest in children and correctly applied 803 CMR factors. The registry argued convictions and corroborating testimony supported a finding of deviant sexual interest; counsel for Doe urged the
Gabrielle Lovano, representing the Offender Registry Board, defended a registry classification decision that rested on a hearing examiner’s finding the respondent’s prior convictions and other evidence showed a deviant sexual interest in children. Lovano told the panel the examiner applied the board’s regulatory factors (803 CMR 1.33) and did not make a clinical diagnosis; she noted the examiner declined to apply factor 1 (diagnosis‑based) and instead grounded the finding in convictions and corroborating testimony.
"The hearing examiner made her findings based on convictions and reliable testimony and then applied the regulatory factors," Lovano said, noting that factor 3 addresses conduct suggesting sexual interest in prepubescent children and is relevant where there is a conviction involving a child.
John Doe’s counsel, Joseph Schneiderman, argued the hearing examiner impermissibly functioned as a surrogate expert by invoking clinically framed concepts such as "grooming" and "test‑touching" without admissible expert proof linking those behaviors to the regulatory framework. Schneiderman said the examiner relied on clinical‑sounding inferences (grooming and test touches) that were not supported by expert evaluation or sufficient evidentiary foundation.
The panel asked detailed questions about what evidence the examiner relied on, how the regulatory factors should be applied, and whether the decision crossed the line into diagnosing or expert inference. The Appeals Court discussed Doe 89230 (a prior Appeals Court decision) and related precedent distinguishing proper application of regulatory risk factors from an agency's acting as an expert diagnostician.
The court did not announce a decision from the bench. Counsel on both sides highlighted the balance courts and agencies must strike between receiving reliable hearsay and avoiding agency conclusions that require clinical expertise.
