Massachusetts district court judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph is now facing formal charges of “willful judicial misconduct,” brought by the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct, according to a press release from the department.
These charges come from her involvement in a 2018 incident in which she is accused of helping an illegal immigrant evade federal authorities, a case that has sparked debate about whether judges must cooperate with federal law enforcement.
In April 2018, Joseph was presiding over a drug possession case involving Jose Medina-Perez, an illegal immigrant who had been twice deported and has been ordered not to return to the United States until 2027. After Medina-Perez’s arrest in Newton, Massachusetts, a U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement agent arrived at the courthouse to take Medina-Perez into custody. However, the agent was ordered out of the courtroom and told to wait in the lobby. Meanwhile, Joseph allowed Medina-Perez’s defense attorney to escort the illegal immigrant to a courthouse lockup, where, federal prosecutors say, court officer Wesley Macgregor released the defendant through a rear exit, bypassing the waiting ICE agent. The escape let Medina-Perez slip away and avoid federal custody, as NewBostonPost previously reported.
The Commission on Judicial Conduct’s formal charges, filed on December 2, 2024, accuse Joseph of violating the Massachusetts “Code of Judicial Conduct,” claiming that she intentionally obstructed the enforcement of federal law by facilitating the defendant’s escape.
The commission alleges that Joseph failed to cooperate with judicial disciplinary authorities, further compounding the seriousness of the charges.
This case comes after a 2019 federal indictment of both Judge Joseph and court officer Macgregor, which accused them of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to interfere with a federal proceeding. Those charges were eventually dropped, but the case was referred to the Commission on Judicial Conduct, according to The Daily Item. Since then, the focus has shifted to Joseph’s actions within the context of judicial ethics and accountability.
Critics of the judge, including law enforcement officials, argue that Joseph’s decision to allow the defendant to escape undermines the rule of law and impedes the work of federal immigration authorities. Supporters say a state court judge does not need to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration cases.
The incident has been framed by many as a challenge to the state’s stance on immigration enforcement, which includes sanctuary cities that limit local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. However, for those advocating for judicial accountability, the central issue remains whether Joseph’s actions compromised her duty to uphold the law impartially, according to The Daily Item.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have contended that the judiciary cannot have people like Joseph in it.
“The actions of the judge in this incident are a detriment to the rule of law and highly offensive to the law enforcement officers of ICE who swear an oath to uphold our nation’s immigration laws,” said Todd M. Lyons, acting field office director of the Boston office of ICE, in a written statement in 2019. “In order for our criminal justice system to work fairly for all people, it must be protected against judicial officials who would seek to replace the implementation of our laws with their own ideological views or politically-driven agenda.”
