Boston, MA – Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph is at the center of a legal firestorm after being formally accused of misconduct for allegedly helping a previously deported illegal migrant escape U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody.
The controversy dates back to 2018, when Dominican national Jose Medina-Perez appeared at Newton District Court on dr*g charges and a fugitive warrant from Pennsylvania. Medina-Perez had already been deported twice and was barred from reentering the United States until 2027. Despite this, he reportedly left the courthouse undetected — triggering nationwide outrage.
Federal Prosecutors Say She Turned Off the Recording
According to Fox News, prosecutors allege Judge Joseph instructed the courtroom clerk to shut off the audio recording for 52 seconds — a move that federal authorities claim allowed time to coordinate the defendant’s exit through a rear door while ICE waited at the front.
“It has become such a part of local lore in Boston that the media often report it as fact — that she walked him out the back and wished him Godspeed,” Joseph’s attorney said at the opening of the Suffolk Superior Court hearing.
Immunity Deal and Testimony
Medina-Perez’s attorney, David Jellinek, testified under an immunity agreement with the federal government, providing key insights into the courtroom events that day. According to court records, Joseph allegedly agreed when the defense attorney asked to meet the defendant downstairs — where the rear exit was located.
The presiding judge, Denis McInerney, is expected to issue a formal report and recommendation once the hearings conclude. The outcome could influence how far judicial immunity extends — especially in matters involving immigration enforcement and federal law.
Public Reaction Divided
The case has drawn sharp reactions across Massachusetts and beyond. While some see Judge Joseph as a defender of human dignity, others argue she obstructed justice and endangered national security.
Federal sources have not confirmed whether new criminal charges will be filed, but the outcome of this misconduct hearing could have broad legal and political implications in an already polarized climate surrounding immigration policy.
