Emotions of the decision aside (we all believe that this is truly a despicable woman, make no mistake), the judge definitely did make the correct decision on releasing the accuser's new name/alias and relevant medical information; the address is less clear, but there are very valid reasons why this would be disclosed as well, even though there are also reasons why a judge might withhold that.
While it might not seem fair on its face, the 6th Amendment's "right to face your accuser" does guarantee the defendant's right to know the identity of who is accusing them. An alias or name change is a choice the plaintiff made prior to conviction/acquittal, and would be withheld from the defendant if convicted.
Medical information can be shared with the defense if pertinent to the case, and must be shared if the prosecution is using it as evidence, which is certainly the case here.
The address isn't as cut-and-dry as the other two. I don't know the specific reason behind that decision; the judge can order that withheld from the defendant if there is a legitimate risk of harm, not simply fear. However, there are reasons why the accuser's address could be evidence the defense has a right to. For instance, substantial need - for case preparation, the defense might need it for evidence-gathering, and if they can show cause to the judge that there may be information relevant to the case at the accuser's address, that would information that the defendant has a right to - especially if it could be potentially exculpatory. (the Brady Rule). Another reason is impeachment material, where the defense would need the address to perform a background check to establish the accuser's credibility. In all of these cases, however, the judge could still bar the defendant from contacting the individual. This woman's out on a $300,000 bond, so it's certainly in her best interest to not do anything stupid, lest her arse go back to jail. Unfortunately, if there's a restraining order, the accuser's address must be provided anyway, so that the defendant knows where to avoid.
None of these circumstances are unfair or a violation of the accuser's rights. In a fair trial, the judge has a responsibility to protect the constitutional rights of both parties, and the circumstances or seriousness of the crime or accusation are not an excuse to allow these rights to be violated (conversely, in these instances it would be even more important that these rights are protected). We might not like her, but at this point she is as innocent as the accuser.
www.nbcnews.com
www.nbcconnecticut.com
