Judicial Misconduct Is Usually Ignored

A Massachusetts judge who helped an illegal immigrant escape immigration officers in 2018 appears to have paid little price, setting a tone for other judges.

Massachusetts Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph

A Wisconsin judge was charged Friday by the FBI with two felonies for allegedly facilitating the escape of an illegal immigrant after he appeared in her courtroom.

Commentators warned of an impending Constitutional crisis.

But Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan isn’t the first judge to face such charges. And, if what happened the last time is any indicator, she doesn’t have much to worry about.

In 2018, Massachusetts Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph oversaw the criminal arraignment of Jose Medina-Perez, an undocumented immigrant from the Dominican Republic who was charged with fleeing a charge of drunk driving in Pennsylvania and two counts of controlled substance violations in Massachusetts.

When Judge Joseph was informed that immigration officials were waiting in the courthouse lobby to apprehend Medina-Perez, she said “ICE is gonna get him?” and “What if we detain him?”

After it was pointed out that the court recording system was turned on, she turned it off, in violation of court rules.

In a 52-second unrecorded sidebar with defense attorneys, an escape plan was hatched for Medina-Perez, who had already been deported once and re-entered the U.S. illegally.

Basement Door

A defense lawyer and an interpreter later accompanied Medina-Perez downstairs to a lockup area. A court officer then used his key card to open the door to a sally port and released the man out the back door. He snuck away, undetected by officers from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, who were waiting in the lobby.

Judge Joseph subsequently was indicted by a federal grand jury in 2019 for obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstructing a federal proceeding. These are serious charges that carry a penalty of many years in prison.

Attorney General Maura Healey of Massachusetts sharply criticized the prosecution of Judge Joseph, calling the indictment “a radical and politically motivated attack on our state and the independence of our courts.” Dozens of Massachusetts judges signed a petition supporting Judge Joseph.

The case dragged on until 2022, when prosecutors dropped the charges against Judge Roberts in exchange for her agreement to refer herself to the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC). She also made certain “factual admissions” that the commission might consider.

Since the CJC focus is on judicial ethics, not criminal misconduct, Judge Roberts was permitted to resume her judicial duties. She currently serves as a Boston Municipal Court judge.

Still Pending

It’s now been about seven years since the incident, and Judge Roberts has faced no serious consequences.

The last media reporting on her case was on December 2, 2024, when it was noted the CJC had filed formal charges with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), accusing Joseph of “willful judicial misconduct” that brought the judicial office into disrepute.

The charges allege violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically:

• Rule 1.1: Failing to comply with the law.

• Rule 1.2: Undermining public confidence in judicial integrity and impartiality.

• Rules 2.2 and 2.5: Failing to perform duties fairly, impartially, and competently.

• Rule 2.16: Failing to cooperate candidly with disciplinary authorities.

The SJC said Joseph’s unrecorded 52-second sidebar discussion violated state court rules and that Joseph was “less than fully candid” with senior judges about it.

Joseph has denied all misconduct, claiming she acted fairly, without intent to assist Medina-Perez’s escape, and cooperated fully and truthfully with inquiries.

A public hearing was supposed to have been scheduled by now to take evidence and witness testimony. The CJC will then recommend disciplinary action (or none) to the SJC, which makes the final decision. Potential outcomes include dismissal of charges, private or public reprimand, suspension, or removal, depending on the findings.

No Independent Oversight

In reality, there is no independent oversight of judicial misconduct in either the federal or state judiciary.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Council is a group of judges who make decisions that are swayed by political considerations.

The situation is no different in the federal judiciary.

In 2021, Chief Judge Miranda Du of Nevada literally made up evidence to justify dismissing an age discrimination case I filed after the Great Recession of 2008 when a federal agency advertised five jobs at two institutions with populations under the age of 40 - a law school and an office of outgoing Peace Corps volunteers.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit adopted Judge Du’s purely fictional evidence to summarily dismiss my appeal.

I filed a judicial complaint against Du and the panel that was dismissed out of hand by the Chief Judge Ninth Circuit, Mary H. Murguia for remarkably specious reasons.

At no point was there ever any independent evaluation of the merits of my judicial misconduct complaint. No one cared that a federal judge intentionally torpedoed a case by inserting false evidence in the record.

One Percent

Virtually all judicial misconduct complaints are an exercise in futility.

In 2021, NBC News reviewed various states’ judicial conduct commission data from 2016 to 2020 and found that thousands of complaints are filed across the country every year, but only about 1 percent result in judges’ being publicly disciplined or stepping down after investigations are opened.

Lack of accountability is a major flaw in our judiciary. Judges cannot police judges any more than police can police the police (who often face civilian review boards). In courtrooms around the country, judges engage in serious misconduct that goes unpunished, which creates a serious lack of deterrence to future judicial misconduct.