BOSTON – Proceedings commenced Monday for a Massachusetts judge accused of civil misconduct related to her alleged actions to aid an immigrant in dodging an immigration enforcement agent. The controversy traces back to a 2018 incident involving Judge Shelley Joseph, a district court judge, who is believed to have collaborated with the defendant’s attorney and a court officer to facilitate his exit through a courthouse back door following a hearing. The defendant, Jose Medina-Perez, was facing drug possession charges, and an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer was present outside the courtroom intending to detain him.
Judith Fabricant, serving as special counsel for the commission, emphasized the implications of the case, stating, “This case is about the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the Massachusetts judiciary and the appearance of integrity, impartiality, and independence every judge must uphold.”
Elizabeth Mulvey, Joseph’s attorney, contended that the case had been exaggerated over time and argued that public opinion was polarized with some viewing her client as a criminal and others as a “folk hero.” She emphasized that the incident did not play out as popularly depicted with the judge escorting Medina-Perez to freedom.
Mulvey asserted, “Today in this courtroom, we are going to have the opportunity to hear all the evidence.”
The Massachusetts courtroom drama parallels a case involving a Milwaukee judge, accused in April of assisting a man in eluding immigration authorities. Such cases have fueled ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and local jurisdictions amidst a broader crackdown on immigration.
The Milwaukee incident saw County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan reportedly guide a man and his lawyer out through a jury door after learning of an immigration arrest pursuit, culminating in the man’s capture outside the courthouse.
In Massachusetts, the federal charges against Joseph were dismissed in 2022 following her consent to an investigation by a state body responsible for examining judicial misconduct allegations. Last year, the Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded that Joseph engaged in egregious judicial conduct that tarnished the reputation of her office and the broader administration of justice.
Denis McInerney, tasked by the Supreme Judicial Court to oversee the hearing, will assess the evidence and eventually deliver his recommendation based on potential breaches of the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct. The hearing is anticipated to span about a week.
The initial day’s proceedings heavily featured testimony from lawyer David Jellinek, who represented Medina-Perez and had been granted immunity by federal prosecutors. Medina-Perez faced drug-related charges and was also linked to a Pennsylvania warrant.
Jellinek conducted research indicating his client might not be the individual sought under the Pennsylvania warrant, expressing concerns about the wrongful detention of a U.S. citizen. “I was quite concerned for my client,” he stated, revealing his plan to have Medina-Perez exit via the back door after failing to convince the ICE agent.
Fabricant asserted that Judge Joseph endorsed this plan, arguably shown through an off-the-record conversation appearing to empathize with Jellinek’s objectives. However, Thomas Hoopes, another attorney for Joseph, posited that Jellinek may have misunderstood Joseph’s stance as she raised detention possibilities.
The prosecutor concurred Medina-Perez was not the wanted suspect in Pennsylvania, moving to drop the related fugitive charge, and with no bail sought on the drug charges, Medina-Perez’s release was justified.
The case heavily depends on the brief but critical off-the-record dialogue, which remains a contentious point between the parties.