>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
The Investigation and Findings
Hearing Officer Denis J. McInerney, who led the state’s investigation, found that Joseph “did not know about — much less authorize — the escape plan and did not mislead court authorities following the incident.”
Still, McInerney ruled that Joseph’s decision to hold an off-the-record sidebar meeting — and then allow the defendant’s movement through restricted areas — “inadvertently created the appearance of impropriety and bias.”
That off-the-record moment would become one of the most controversial 52 seconds in recent Massachusetts judicial history.
What Really Happened That Day
According to federal prosecutors, Judge Joseph had been informed that an ICE agent was waiting in the courthouse lobby to arrest Medina-Perez — a man previously deported and barred from reentering the U.S. until 2027.
When the courtroom clerk mentioned the ICE officer’s presence, Joseph allegedly said, “That’s OK. I will not allow them to enter here. But he has been released regarding this matter.”
Court documents show that the audio recording was turned off for 52 seconds when Joseph instructed the clerk to “go off the record for a moment.” When the audio resumed, she announced that she would release the defendant.
Federal prosecutors say Medina-Perez’s attorney, David Jellinek, then asked to meet with his client downstairs. Joseph replied, “That’s great. Of course.” Moments later, a court officer used his security badge to open a rear door, letting the defendant slip out unnoticed.
Fallout and Defense
At the conduct review hearing, Joseph’s defense argued that she never intended to obstruct justice. Her attorney told the panel:
“If you were to walk down the street and take a survey of the people you meet, 100% of them would tell you Judge Joseph let an illegal immigrant out the back door of the district court. Fifty percent of them would say she’s a criminal and should go to jail. Fifty percent would call her a folk hero for what she gave. But she definitely did it.”
“It has become such a part of local lore in Boston that the media, for the most part, have dropped the niceties of alleged or charged, and they report and make references to this incident as if a dozen people had seen Judge Joseph get off the bench, escorted the defendant to the door, gave him a hug and wished him Godspeed,” the attorney continued.
The Federal Angle
Joseph was once criminally charged by the Trump-era Department of Justice for obstruction of justice and conspiracy. But in September 2022, the DOJ dropped the charges after Joseph self-reported to the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) and admitted to key facts.
Even so, the CJC didn’t let her off the hook. The commission filed formal accusations, citing “willful judicial misconduct” and conduct “prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
A Lesson in Judicial Accountability
McInerney’s conclusion leaves no doubt that Joseph’s actions — whether intentional or not — eroded public confidence in the courts.
Her decision to go off-record, her handling of the ICE presence, and her overall demeanor during the case painted a picture of bias that Massachusetts officials could no longer ignore.
For many Americans outraged by the case, this reprimand feels like long-overdue justice.
And for Judge Shelley Richmond Joseph, it’s a permanent stain on a judicial career once seen as untouchable.
