(Image via iStock)
Massachusetts District Court Judge Shelley Joseph didn’t join the bench in July 2017 thinking she’d become a symbol of civil disobedience.
But whether she knew it or not, that changed in April 2018 when she decided not to let an ICE agent arrest a defendant on an immigration warrant who stood before her facing low-level drug charges.
Jose Medina-Perez had already been deported twice and had allegedly illegally reentered the country when he was picked up for drug possession and ordered to appear in the district courthouse in the tony Boston suburb of Newton. When he came to court, he and his lawyer learned that an ICE agent was there to arrest him. The judge ordered that the ICE agent wait outside while Medina-Perez’s case was heard.
Following a bench conference among the defense attorney, prosecutor, and judge (part of which was recorded and part of which was not), Medina-Perez was permitted to leave through a backdoor, downstairs exit instead of the front door. (The prosecutor seemed to be in agreement with this arrangement as there was an issue whether Medina-Perez was the correct person being sought.) The backdoor exit was opened by a court officer from Judge Joseph’s courtroom.
Medina-Perez subsequently jumped a fence and for a short time avoided apprehension. The ICE agent, after having waited outside for several hours, went home empty-handed and angry.
Since ICE has ratcheted up its enforcement efforts under the Trump administration, there have been stand-offs in state courts around the country between local and federal authorities regarding what role, if any, the state should have in facilitating ICE arrests. Many cities in so-called sanctuary locations (like Newton) do not permit ICE agents to arrest immigrants inside the courthouse because they feel it discourages non-U.S. citizens from showing up in court for their cases. They also believe such enforcement disturbs the normal functioning of the court. Absent a valid judge-ordered arrest warrant (as opposed to one merely order by ICE), officials in those court houses will not help ICE.
Judge Joseph’s apparent assistance in the escape of Perez-Medina so enraged the ICE agent that it was reported to higher-ups and maybe even POTUS himself. In a largely unprecedented move by federal authorities, a decision was made to indict Judge Joseph and the court officer who let Perez-Media out the back. Both now stand charged with federal counts of obstruction of justice and conspiracy. The last time a sitting judge in Massachusetts was indicted by federal prosecutors while on the bench was in 1787 when a judge defended a farmer’s rebellion against state tax laws.
Joseph was put on administrative leave and lost her $184,000 yearly salary. So much for the presumption of innocence.
Every attorney feels both personal and professional humiliation when caught up in a controversy that brings national media attention. It’s embarrassing to be reprimanded in court by a judge, but imagine a judge being reprimanded and then formally charged by federal prosecutors in a story that garners national media attention.
For Joseph, this is nothing short of catastrophic. In news articles she appears drawn and teary-eyed.
State authorities like Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey defended Joseph and the need for state courts to remain autonomous and free from federal interference. Retired Massachusetts Judge Carol Ball called the indictment politically motivated.
However, conservative opponents like right-wing radio host Howie Carr called Joseph “a lawless, privileged moonbat judge” who is “hoping for an O.J. Simpson-like jury nullification from 12 Democrats afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
He’s speaking of a future trial and as of now it appears that’s what Joseph is interested in doing. According to reports, she recently turned down a plea offer that would not involve jail time.
While DOJ officials insist the case has nothing to do with politics and all to do with a judge’s obligations to carry out the law, it’s inevitable the trial will be political, with pro-immigrant rights activists lining up on one side and pro-Trump supporters on the other.
For my part, I’m rooting for the judge. Having been on the bench less than one year, she may not have realized the quagmire she was stepping into when she permitted Medina-Perez to exit out the back. My guess is she truly believed what she did was right and fair — a consideration for all judges. I don’t think it was ever her intention to thwart federal legal process, but in her quest to do the “right thing,” she may have inadvertently done that.
Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.