Boston Judge Faces Misconduct Hearing Over Alleged Aiding of Deported Immigrant

A Boston judge is set to undergo a formal misconduct hearing following allegations that in 2018 she helped an unauthorized immigrant escape from custody. The case has become a flashpoint in debates over judicial responsibility, immigration enforcement, and the limits of discretion.

Allegations of Judicial Misconduct

Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph faces civil charges tied to claims that she enabled Jose Medina‑Perez, a Dominican national who had already been deported twice, to slip unnoticed out of Newton District Court. Prosecutors allege that Medina‑Perez, who was in court on drug possession charges and a fugitive warrant from Pennsylvania, was meant to be taken into ICE custody immediately following proceedings.

According to federal prosecutors, Judge Joseph directed a court clerk to wait in the lobby instead of allowing ICE to detain Medina‑Perez directly. Then, during court, Joseph allegedly asked the clerk to cut courtroom audio for 52 seconds, after which she declared the defendant free. At that moment, she purportedly told the clerk she would not allow ICE to enter the courtroom, despite their presence nearby.

Prosecutors also claim that a back exit was unlocked using a security access card—ushering the defendant and his attorneys quietly through a rear sally port. Meanwhile, ICE agents, waiting in the lobby, were left unaware.

Joseph has denied wrongdoing, but the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) has formally accused her of “willful judicial misconduct” and actions “prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Though the U.S. Department of Justice initially pursued criminal charges, it dropped them in September 2022 after Joseph reported certain facts about the event to the CJC.

A Hearing in the Spotlight

The hearing in Suffolk Superior Court has already drawn attention. Presiding Judge Denis McInerney will later issue a report with his findings and recommendations. At the outset, Joseph’s attorney stressed that she has not been convicted of any crime.

Her counsel painted the episode as the stuff of local legend rather than proven fact:

“If you walked down the street and asked, a hundred people would say she let someone out the back door. Fifty would think she broke the law, fifty would hail her as a hero. But ‘definitely did it’ is how many people talk now.”

Key testimony has come from David Jellinek, Medina‑Perez’s attorney, who reportedly struck an immunity deal in exchange for testifying against Joseph.

Context and Comparisons

This case is not unique in judicial history. Under prior administrations, other judges have faced scrutiny for aiding immigrants or obstructing federal detentions. In Wisconsin, a county judge was arrested for shielding a detainee. In New Mexico, a magistrate and spouse were charged with harboring an individual linked to a designated gang.

In Joseph’s case, the stakes are particularly high—it involves a sitting judge, courtroom protocol, and federal immigration enforcement. Supporters argue she had discretion within her courtroom; critics contend she overstepped.

Broader Implications

If Judge Joseph is found to have committed misconduct, it could affect public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. For courts across the country, it raises troubling questions:

• Where should the line be drawn between judicial discretion and obstruction of federal law?

• Should judges be held criminally accountable for courtroom decisions tied to immigration enforcement?

• How will this hearing impact the balance of authority between courts and federal law enforcement?

Beyond the courtroom, the case has drawn political attention. Immigration policy, judicial activism, and the accountability of public officials are all central themes in this dispute. Joseph has served on the bench for years; this hearing could define the final chapter of her career.

For now, the country watches. The decision of Judge McInerney—and perhaps appeals beyond—may establish new benchmarks for how far a judge may go in protecting individuals in immigration proceedings.