Bringing criminal charges in a case like this is extremely rare, but a similar case has been unfolding in Massachusetts for more than seven years.
One year later, Joseph emerged teary-eyed from federal court in Boston, where she was charged with conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
“This is intentional interference with the enforcement of federal law.
“I think that Joseph was the canary in the coalmine,” former federal judge Nancy Gertner tells NPR.
Judge Joseph responded, “That’s fine, of course.”
On Thursday, a Wisconsin judge entered a not guilty plea to federal charges alleging that she assisted an undocumented immigrant who was charged with misdemeanor battery in escaping from her courtroom to avoid immigration officials. Judge Hannah Dugan of Milwaukee County is seeking the dismissal of her case and denies any wrongdoing.
This type of case rarely results in criminal charges, but for over seven years, a case similar to this has been going on in Massachusetts.
When she presided over the Newton District Court alone for the first time in April 2018, Judge Shelley Joseph was so new to the bench that she brought her father-in-law and mother-in-law to observe. Despite the fact that it would ultimately ruin her career, she has not discussed her cases from that morning, which seemed unusual.
A year later, Joseph came out of federal court in Boston, where she was accused of conspiracy and obstruction of justice, crying. She and a defense lawyer allegedly assisted an undocumented immigrant facing drug charges in slipping out the back door of a courtroom to avoid the United States on that April day in Newton, according to the prosecution. A. He was greeted by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer outside the front door. The penalties were 25 years in prison.
Outside the Boston court, a swarm of reporters waited for Joseph and her attorney, Thomas Hoopes.
“This prosecution is absolutely political,” declared Hoopes. “Shelly Joseph is completely innocent. “..”.
Prosecutors, however, argued otherwise. Then-U stated, “This case is about the rule of law.”. S. . Lawyer Andrew Lelling. “This is deliberate interference with federal law enforcement. Our personal opinions cannot be used as an excuse to break the law. “.”.
Former Federal Judge Nancy Gertner tells NPR, “I believe that Joseph was the canary in the coalmine.”. It was a precursor to the pattern of federal overreach that she believes is becoming worse.
Gertner claims, “This is a federal government that does not understand there really are two authorities: the state and the federal government,”. “To achieve its goals, the federal government cannot compel or interfere with state processes. “..”.
It took Massachusetts prosecutors over a year to charge Joseph, and then only after it became evident that no other organization, including the state or any professional or ethics commission, would become involved, in contrast to the Wisconsin case, where Dugan was charged within a week, arrested in court, handcuffed, and photographed.
Nathaniel Mendell, U’s first assistant at the time, remembers, “The alleged conduct was serious enough that there had to be some accounting for that, we [couldn’t] do nothing.”. A. attorney. He also refutes claims that the prosecution was motivated by politics.
“We found it astounding that a judge would take the initiative to thwart an arrest; we thought, ‘Who does that?'” Mendell says. “What if you had a judge walking a Jan?” he continues. Out in the rear of the courtroom are six defendants. People probably wouldn’t give it much thought as to whether or not it was a good idea and whether or not it upheld the rule of law. “,”.
In court documents, Joseph maintains she was unaware of any scheme to elude the ICE agent, although she and her lawyer declined to comment for this story. She claims that Joseph was falsely accused by the defense lawyer for the undocumented man, with whom he is accused of conspiring, in order to secure immunity for himself.
A lot is left up for interpretation in court documents.
It is claimed that late on April 2, 2018, the defense lawyer conspired with a court clerk to allow his client to exit through a basement door that opened into a parking lot behind the courthouse. Even though the defendant had been released from custody, that plan relied on the judge returning him to lockup.
The defense lawyer told the judge that ICE would pick up his client if he left the front door, according to a court recording transcription that the prosecutors submitted. “ICE is gonna get him?” and “What if we detain him?” were the judge’s multiple responses.
The court recording was turned off after the lawyer asked if they were on the record. The judge then asked the clerk, “Can we go off the record for a moment?”. Joseph is said to have agreed after the lawyer allegedly explained the plan to her at that point. “I would ask that he, uh- I believe he has some property downstairs,” the defense lawyer said as the recording was resumed less than a minute later. Please allow me to talk to him downstairs with the interpreter. “That’s okay, of course,” said Judge Joseph. “..”.
A few minutes later, the ICE agent who had been waiting in the front lobby as directed by the court was unaware that the defendant had been released to the parking lot.
Later, when speaking with court officials, Judge Joseph vehemently denied that she was involved in the defendant’s release and insisted that anything she did that might have assisted him in avoiding ICE was accidental. She also claimed that she was unaware that turning off the court recorder prohibited her from breaking the rules.
Joseph was taken from the bench and placed on unpaid leave as soon as she was indicted. Later, she was able to successfully appeal that to the state Supreme Court, and her salary was restored.
After Joe Biden was elected president in 2020, however, Joseph had a very fortunate break. S. . The charges against her were withdrawn by the lawyer he hired. The Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct would instead look into Joseph.
She was therefore permitted to sit on the bench again, albeit in a different court. For the time being at least.
To ascertain whether Joseph committed deliberate and unlawful misconduct and then lied about it, the Judicial Conduct Commission will hold a trial-style hearing next month. After that, Joseph’s fate will be decided by the Supreme Judicial Court.
Gertner calls the idea that there was a deliberate attempt to undermine the federal government “just poppycock.”.
Gertner says this type of case should never have been charged as a federal crime, even though Joseph may have made mistakes in court that day, like turning off the court recorder. He attributes these mistakes to inexperience. That would be the right place for things like sexual misconduct or corruption, but not for a judge’s use of discretion or “what she’s doing to keep order in her courtroom and to keep the atmosphere free from intimidation,” according to Gertner. “..”.
According to Gertner, “a judge’s domain is everything she does in her courtroom.”. “ICE is free to wait outside the courthouse if that is what they wish to do. However, there is no requirement that they must be hovering inside or arrest a defendant or witness during the trial. If the state bench and state procedures are respected by ICE, the republic will remain intact. “.”.
Remarks were not immediately answered by the Justice Department or ICE.
In the opinion of others, however, judges who treat people differently because of their immigration status are the ones who need to be stopped.
The Joseph and Dugan cases, according to Jessica Vaughan of the immigration-limits advocacy group Center for Immigration Studies, are “two really shocking expressions of obstruction of legitimate immigration enforcement.”. “..”.
“[Judges] are supposed to uphold the law, not help people evade it,” she asserts. Witnessing a man being escorted out of court by a judge who is obviously more concerned with defending an undocumented alien than with defending [victims’] right to a trial is particularly upsetting for the victims. “,”.
Equal justice for all is a fundamental principle of courts, according to Vaughan.
“We are really creating a double standard that can destroy the public faith in an impartial judiciary system that operates without bias if judges are offering escape hatches and allowing people who are in the country illegally to be treated differently,” she says.
But it’s unclear how state judges should strike a balance between the federal government’s right to enforce immigration law and their right to manage their courts independently. Although juries and judges are asked to decide where the line is, courts are considering the same issue.
