A Tap On The Wrist For The Judge Who Let An Illegal Immigrant Escape INS?
A proposed reprimand in the case of a Massachusetts judge who let an illegal immigrant escape INS agents through a back door of the courthouse shows contempt for the public trust.
In 2019, Massachusetts Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph was indicted by a federal grand jury and faced years in prison for obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and obstructing a federal proceeding.
She didn’t go to trial, however, because federal prosecutors dropped the charges in 2022 in exchange for Joseph referring herself to the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC). Then, she returned to work as a judge.
This week, a hearing officer appointed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recommended a public reprimand in the case.
Contrary to the federal grand jury, Denis J. McInerney, who works at a major MA law firm, Davis Polk & Wardwell, announced that he found no “credible” evidence that Joseph intended to aid the illegal immigrant’s escape. He said the reprimand is warranted only because Joseph inadvertently violated a court rule and created an “appearance” of impropriety.
The Commission will review the recommendation and make a final decision, which is then subject to review by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Inadvertent?
Ultimately, McInerney found that Judge Joseph did some things that she shouldn’t have, but they were all inadvertent because she was a fairly new judge.
Here’s what happened.
In 2018, Judge Joseph oversaw the criminal arraignment of Jose Medina-Perez, an undocumented immigrant from the Dominican Republic.
He was charged as a fugitive from justice in connection with a charge of drunk driving in Pennsylvania, and two counts of controlled substance violations in Massachusetts. He had already been deported once and illegally reentered the U.S.
Two agents from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were waiting outside Joseph’s courtroom to apprehend and deport Medina-Perez. When Judge Joseph was informed of this, she said, “ICE is gonna get him?” and “What if we detain him?” (These statements show intent to protect Medina-Perez from deportation.)
When it was pointed out that the court recording system was on, Joseph ordered it turned off in violation of court rules. (This is evidence she intended to hide her conversation with the attorneys. Why? Because she was aware that discussing how to protect Medina-Perez from deportation was improper.)
Joseph proceeded to engage in a 52-second unrecorded sidebar with the attorneys in the case. An escape plan was hatched for Medina-Perez.
A court clerk subsequently took Medina-Perez down to the court basement. He used his security card to open a back door, allowing Medina-Perez to escape the ICE agents. (Anyone familiar with courts would know it is nonsensical to infer that a clerk would independently free Medina-Perez without Joseph’s explicit approval.)
The judiciary is self-policing and virtually unaccountable to the public. But in this case, a federal grand jury found sufficient evidence to indict Joseph. The above facts are evidence that a state court judge conspired to break federal law. She faced years in prison until the charges against her were dismissed. To dismiss her actions as inadvertent is preposterous.
Additionally, in exchange for dismissal of the federal charges, Joseph admitted that:
She knew ICE officers were waiting outside the courtroom to take custody of Medina-Perez if he was released from state custody;
She instructed the courtroom recording equipment to be turned off during a sidebar conference with counsel, violating court rules.
She discussed with the court-appointed defense attorney, David Jellinek, the possibility of releasing the defendant through a rear exit to avoid the agent.
Medina-Perez was subsequently released through a rear sally port exit and evaded ICE custody.
Her actions were a breach of judicial conduct because she failed to comply with legal standards and undermined public confidence in the judiciary.
She did not admit in so many words that she intentionally conspired to help Medina-Perez to evade immigration authorities. However, during a hearing in June, the court appointed defense counsel, Jellinek, testified that Joseph agreed during the off the record sidebar to the plan he proposed - to send Medina-Perez downstairs to a court lockup area and allow him to leave through a backdoor, thus avoiding ICE.
It is not clear why the hearing officer, McInerney, did not find Jellinek’s testimony credible. Jellinek, unlike Joseph, had nothing to gain by lying. Jellinek was granted immunity from prosecution by federal prosecutors.
Gross Injustice
There are many reasons to be appalled at the disposition of this case with only a public reprimand.
It is yet more evidence that the self-policing court system is corrupt. In this instance, members of the public comprised a federal grand jury that heard the facts and indicted Joseph. Will the court simply ignore this?
Moreover, Joseph’s actions affected the perception of the court system, and people who work in and for the courts.
Wesley MacGregor, the clerk who unlocked the door for Medina-Perez, was arrested at his home and indicted on charges of perjury and obstruction. Prosecutors said he falsely claimed to be unaware of Medina-Perez’s ICE detainer and falsely told state judges he accidentally disabled the courtroom audio recorder. Prosecutors dismissed the charges when he entered an agreement, the details of which are undisclosed. After working for the court system since 1993, MacGregor retired.
Jellinek finds himself in an undesirable position with respect to Joseph and the state judiciary. Joseph’s lawyer claims she only allowed Medina-Perez to be sent to lock up to facilitate a private conversation between him and his attorney, and that she assumed ICE would “then do its job.” Jellinick says Joseph approved the plan.
It seems extremely unlikely - to the point of being unfathomable - that a court-appointed attorney who is paid regardless would put his career on the line to allow an illegal immigrant to escape from custody.
Smoke and Mirrors
It’s a farce.
Smoke and mirrors.
The sad reality is that the judiciary is unaccountable to the American public, and it routinely overlooks, dismisses, or minimizes gross and even blatant misconduct.
There should be a truly independent investigation of judicial corruption, as opposed to a review by an attorney who works within the system and, thus, depends upon its good will. It is even worth contemplating the establishment of “civilian” review boards to address judicial misconduct complaints, similar to those in police departments.