Supreme Judicial Court Reprimands Judge for Ordering Court Audio Off During Arraignment

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a public reprimand against Newton District Court Judge Shelley Joseph on September 10, 2026, for directing a clerk to disable courtroom audio during the arraignment of Jose Medina-Perez in 2018.

The conduct occurred during an April 2, 2018, sidebar discussion about an immigration officer’s presence in the courthouse. Medina-Perez’s lawyer had raised concern that the officer would take him into custody.

The court found that Joseph’s statements and actions created an “appearance of impropriety.” It also found that she violated judicial conduct rules by instructing the clerk to turn off the courtroom audio recording system.

Joseph remains a judge. She was on administrative duty when the court released its decision.

The case did not end with a finding that she knowingly helped Medina-Perez escape. The court instead disciplined the conduct surrounding the hearing and the appearance it created.

Joseph proposed holding Medina-Perez overnight in state custody. The proposal arose as ICE agents waited in the building and counsel objected to the prospect of his immediate detention.

The court said those actions, together with the recording instruction, suggested a possible improper use of a state criminal case. The ruling tied that conclusion to Rule 1.2, while the recording order violated Rule 1.1’s requirement that a judge comply with the law and Rule 211’s recording requirements.

The court explained its distinction in unusually direct terms.

“Given the public nature of the proceedings against the respondent, and to ensure that there is no misunderstanding as to what she is — and is not — being reprimanded for, we conclude that the respondent should be publicly reprimanded.”

The opinion also said Joseph “did not either explicitly or implicitly approve” an escape plan. That finding narrowed the discipline, but did not eliminate it.

The ruling separates proven intent from conduct that damaged judicial neutrality

Federal prosecutors had accused Joseph of helping Medina-Perez leave the courthouse through a rear door while immigration officers waited inside. Those allegations placed the judge’s courtroom decisions at the center of a federal criminal case.

A later disciplinary proceeding reached a different finding about her knowledge. The hearing officer concluded that the Commission on Judicial Conduct had not proved Joseph knew about a plan to help Medina-Perez evade immigration custody.

The six-day evidentiary hearing still produced a basis for discipline. The hearing officer supported action based on the appearance created by Joseph’s conduct and the rule violations involving the recording system.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct initiated the complaint and recommended a public sanction. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adopted that recommendation in an unsigned opinion.

The court’s order described the problem as more than a technical recording failure. It said Joseph’s conduct “created the appearance of willingness to use a [S]tate criminal charge for an illegitimate purpose.”

That language addressed public confidence in the judge’s neutrality. It did not establish that Joseph arranged Medina-Perez’s departure or knowingly approved a plan to defeat federal custody.

The recording instruction remained an independent violation. The court said Joseph failed to abide by rule 211 when she told the clerk to shut off the system during the arraignment.

The state discipline continued after the federal charges ended

Federal charges against Joseph were dismissed in September 2022. She then agreed to cooperate with the state disciplinary process.

Formal charges followed on December 2, 2024. The filing came after the six-day evidentiary hearing before a hearing officer, which examined both the courthouse events and Joseph’s knowledge of any proposed escape.

The federal prosecution and the state discipline therefore produced different outcomes. The criminal case had accused Joseph of helping Medina-Perez avoid immigration detention, while the disciplinary matter focused on the appearance created by her statements and the audio order.

The proceedings stretched across the years after the 2018 hearing. The matter was described as a seven-year legal saga, while attorney Elizabeth Mulvey later referred to an eight-year period.

The final decision was issued in In the Matter of Shelley M. Richmond Joseph, case OE-0157. The unsigned opinion bears the date September 10, 2026.

The court said the sanction was “less severe” than some prior public reprimands or censures. It nevertheless selected a public order because the proceeding involved an active judge and conduct recorded in a public courtroom matter.

The order also made clear that the court wanted the public record to distinguish between two findings. The first concerned Joseph’s instruction to stop the audio recording and her proposal involving overnight state custody. The second concerned the absence of proof that she knew about an escape plan.

Mulvey called the proceedings long and difficult

Mulvey said the “eight-year period was incredibly long and difficult.” She praised the hearing officer for recognizing that Joseph lacked knowledge of an escape plan.

Her comments followed a disciplinary process that continued after the federal charges ended and after Joseph agreed to cooperate with the state investigation. The hearing officer’s finding became part of the court’s explanation for limiting the scope of the sanction.

The court’s decision leaves Joseph on the Massachusetts bench while placing the reprimand in the public record. It identifies the audio instruction as a rule violation and the surrounding conduct as an appearance of improper use of state process.

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.