Judge gave 'reasonable impression' she was letting immigrant evade ICE, ethics charges say
Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph of Massachusetts (center) departs federal court in April 2019 in Boston after facing obstruction-of-justice charges for allegedly helping a man in the country illegally evade immigration officials as he left her Newton, Massachusetts, courthouse after a hearing in 2018. (Photo by Steven Senne/The Associated Press)
A Massachusetts judge who allegedly gave a “reasonable impression” that she was allowing an immigrant to evade federal custody was “less than fully candid” when asked about the incident, according to an ethics complaint filed Monday.
The judge, Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph of Massachusetts, is accused of willful misconduct in the ethics complaint.
Boston.com, Reuters, the Daily Mail and Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly have coverage.
Joseph maintains, however, that she was not aware of a plan to let Jose Medina-Perez escape custody, and she was cooperative and truthful in the investigation by supervisors and disciplinary authorities. She “committed no misconduct and certainly no willful judicial misconduct,” her lawyers said in the written response to the charges.
“Judge Joseph looks forward to a hearing where all the circumstances finally become public,” said Thomas Hoopes, her lawyer, in a statement published by Reuters.
Joseph had once faced federal charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice over the April 2018 incident in the Newton, Massachusetts, courthouse.
Prosecutors had alleged that Joseph allowed Medina-Perez to go downstairs to the lockup, supposedly to retrieve property. The immigrant was then allowed to leave through a back door by a court officer. The charges were dropped in September 2022 after Joseph agreed to report herself to the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct.
The ethics complaint recounted the alleged sequence of events.
Medina-Perez was in court on a Pennsylvania warrant and two controlled-substance violations. A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent was in the courtroom, and Joseph asked him to wait outside in accord with district court policy. At some point before a reconvened hearing, the defense attorney “formulated a plan with the court officer” to avoid ICE agents in which Medina-Perez would be returned to the lockup and let out of a door by the court officer.
The prosecutor later advised Joseph and the defense attorney that she no longer thought that Medina-Perez was the subject of the Pennsylvania warrant, and she would not seek bail on the misdemeanor charges. During a recorded sidebar conference, the defense lawyer said, “ICE is going to pick him up if he walks out the front door. But I think the best thing for us to do is to clear the fugitive issue, release him on a personal, … and hope that we can avoid ICE.”
Joseph allegedy replied, “The other alternative is if you need more time to figure this out—hold until tomorrow.” The defense lawyer responded that ICE would pick up Medina-Perez if he was bailed out. Joseph allegedly responded, “ICE is gonna get him?” and, “What if we detain him?”
The defense lawyer then asked whether the sidebar conference was on the record. Joseph directed the court clerk to turn off the recording equipment. The unrecorded remarks lasted 52 seconds.
Joseph’s recorded statements “would give a reasonable observer the impression that she sought to assist defense counsel in identifying a means for the defendant to avoid ICE,” the ethics complaint says. “Judge Joseph’s willingness to conduct an unrecorded sidebar conversation with counsel, in violation of [a district court rule], added to the basis for that impression.”
The defense lawyer allegedly asked Joseph in the unrecorded conference to allow him to accompany Medina-Perez to return to the lockup area after he was released from state custody. The defense lawyer also allegedly said Medina-Perez could be released through a rear door, according to the ethics complaint. Joseph allegedly agreed to the request with the knowledge that ICE agents were waiting in a different area of the courthouse.
When the recorder was turned back on, the defense lawyer said he thought that the defendant had property downstairs, and he would like to speak with him with an interpreter. “That’s fine. Of course,” Joseph said. After their arrival downstairs, the court officer released the defendant from the rear door, unbeknownst to the ICE agent.
Joseph failed to disclose the unrecorded session to the first justice of the Newton District Court, and when asked about it by a regional administrative judge, she said her unfamiliarity with courtroom equipment may have caused a portion of the hearing not to be recorded, the ethics complaint said.
She mentioned an experience in another courtroom in which she disconnected the recording system after learning that it was amplifying a sidebar conversation. In a conversation with the chief justice of the district court, she denied having anything to do with the defendant’s release.
In her response, Joseph denied that the defense lawyer told her of a plan to release the defendant through the rear door. In addition, she had no knowledge where the ICE agents were waiting outside the courtroom, the response said.
In her response, Joseph said she suggested detaining Medina-Perez to give the defense lawyer time to investigate his belief that ICE had issued a detainer for the wrong person. Because prosecutors were not seeking bail, she thought that the defendant would be released to ICE after his lawyer spoke with him, she said.
As for the unrecorded sidebar, her experiences as a practicing lawyer “led her to believe that this was an occurrence with no sinister meaning,” her response said.
Joseph was suspended in April 2019 as a result of the federal indictment but was reinstated after the federal charges were dropped in 2022, according to Boston.com. She is currently a judge for the Boston Municipal Court.
