Eight years, five months and eight days after a defendant walked out the back door of Newton District Court while an ICE agent waited in the lobby, the Supreme Judicial Court on Thursday told Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph what she did wrong. It was less than the federal government said in 2019, and less than most of the public assumed. It was still enough for a public reprimand, one of the rarest sanctions the court imposes on a sitting judge.
The court found that Joseph created an appearance of impropriety and violated the rules governing courtroom recording. It found no evidence that she authorized, or even knew about, the plan to get the defendant out of the building. That distinction is the whole case, and it took three institutions and most of a decade to draw it.
What happened on April 2, 2018
A man identified in court as Jose Medina-Perez, 38, appeared before Joseph on a narcotics possession charge. His fingerprints had matched a Dominican national who had been deported in 2003 and again in 2007 and was barred from reentry. ICE had lodged a detainer and an agent was in the courthouse to take him into custody after the hearing.
Joseph, following what was then Newton District Court practice, had the ICE agent told to wait outside the courtroom. At sidebar, defense counsel raised the detainer. Joseph instructed the clerk to turn off the courtroom’s audio recording system. It stayed off for 52 seconds. When the recording resumed, Joseph dismissed a fugitive warrant and released the defendant on the state charge. A court officer, Wesley MacGregor, then used his security card to open a rear door, and the defendant left through the basement lockup at 3:01 p.m. The ICE agent never saw him.
The federal case
On April 25, 2019, a federal grand jury indicted Joseph and MacGregor for conspiracy to obstruct justice, aiding and abetting obstruction, and obstructing an official proceeding. MacGregor was also charged with perjury for telling the grand jury he did not know about the detainer. Each faced up to 20 years. Both pleaded not guilty.
The SJC suspended Joseph the day she was indicted, initially without pay. Four months later, in a 5-to-1 decision, it restored her salary and ordered back pay. Chief Justice Ralph Gants wrote: “In turbulent times, the risk of being stripped of a paycheck may have a chilling effect on a judge’s willingness to challenge the conduct of a prosecutor.”
The prosecution ended on September 22, 2022. United States Attorney Rachael Rollins dismissed the charges against Joseph in exchange for her agreement to refer herself to the Commission on Judicial Conduct, and resolved MacGregor’s perjury count with a deferred prosecution agreement. Joseph returned to the bench in the Boston Municipal Court.
The disciplinary case
The Commission on Judicial Conduct investigates complaints against state judges under chapter 211C. It cannot discipline a judge itself. It files formal charges with the SJC, a hearing officer takes evidence and makes findings, the commission makes a recommendation, and the SJC decides.
The commission filed formal charges in December 2024, alleging conduct unbecoming a judicial officer and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Joseph was moved to administrative duties. Denis McInerney served as hearing officer. His report, dated October 31, 2025, found that Joseph did not know about, much less authorize, the escape plan, and recommended a public reprimand. The commission adopted the recommendation and Joseph opposed it, arguing for a lesser sanction.
What the SJC decided
The court’s decision, docketed as SJC-OE-157, was unanimous. It found two things. Joseph’s statements at sidebar, including a proposal to hold the defendant overnight in state custody, and her instruction to turn off the recorder “created an appearance of impropriety in violation of her duties” under the Code of Judicial Conduct. And the decision to go off the record violated the rules that require District Court proceedings to be recorded. The court characterized the conduct as willful judicial misconduct that brought the judicial office into disrepute and was prejudicial to the administration of justice.
It also found what the hearing officer found: no evidence that Joseph was aware of any plan to take the defendant out the back door. The escape was MacGregor’s act.
On the sanction, the court said Joseph’s conduct was less troubling than the conduct in prior public-reprimand cases. It imposed a public reprimand anyway, and explained why: the proceedings had been so public that a private disposition would leave the public unable to tell what she had been disciplined for, and what she had not.
Her lawyer, Elizabeth Mulvey, said the defense was grateful to the hearing officer and described the federal prosecution as baseless from the beginning and “solely the work of the defense lawyer involved.”
What a public reprimand is
Massachusetts has four levels of judicial discipline short of removal. A private reprimand is a letter nobody sees. A public reprimand is published by the SJC and becomes part of the judge’s record. Suspension is available with or without pay. Removal requires either the SJC’s own action under chapter 211C or the constitutional address process through the Legislature and the Governor, which has been used a handful of times in the state’s history.
Public reprimands are uncommon. The commission’s annual reports show a small number of formal charges filed each year, and most complaints are resolved privately or dismissed. A judge who receives a public reprimand keeps the seat. Joseph remains a judge, currently on administrative assignment in the Boston Municipal Court, and the court’s decision does not remove her from it.
Why it took eight years
The timeline is the story as much as the outcome. The commission could not proceed while the federal prosecution was pending; a judge facing a 20-year felony charge does not testify in a disciplinary hearing. The federal case took three and a half years to dismiss. The commission’s charges took two more years to file, the hearing and report another ten months, and the SJC’s decision another ten.
The result is a finding that would have looked modest in 2018, and that has the distinction of being the only adjudicated finding anyone has made about what Joseph actually did. The federal indictment alleged a conspiracy. The disciplinary record found a judge who talked too freely at sidebar, turned off a recorder for under a minute, and did not know what the court officer was about to do.
What did the SJC find Judge Joseph did?
That her statements at sidebar and her instruction to turn off the courtroom recorder created an appearance of impropriety, and that going off the record violated the recording rules. It did not find she knew about or authorized the defendant’s exit through the rear door.
What is the sanction?
A public reprimand, published by the SJC. She remains a judge, currently on administrative duty in the Boston Municipal Court.
What happened to the federal charges?
Dismissed September 22, 2022, by U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins in exchange for Joseph’s self-referral to the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Court officer Wesley MacGregor’s perjury charge was resolved by deferred prosecution.
Who is Judge Shelley Joseph?
A Massachusetts District Court judge appointed in 2017, formerly a prosecutor and defense lawyer. She was sitting in Newton District Court on April 2, 2018, and has since been assigned to the Boston Municipal Court.
How does judicial discipline work in Massachusetts?
The Commission on Judicial Conduct investigates and files formal charges with the Supreme Judicial Court under G.L. c. 211C. A hearing officer takes evidence, the commission recommends a sanction, and the SJC decides. Sanctions range from private reprimand to removal.
Can a judge be removed for this?
Not on these findings. Removal is reserved for the most serious misconduct and the court expressly found her conduct less serious than in prior public-reprimand cases.
Decision and findings as reported by The Boston Globe, Boston.com and the New Bedford Guide, September 10 and 11, 2026, and from the hearing officer’s report and the parties’ filings in SJC-OE-157 as posted by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Federal case history from the docket in United States v. Joseph, D. Mass. (2019), and contemporaneous reporting. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.