Infamous Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph faces a serious reckoning as she prepares for a misconduct hearing. The case stems from her actions in 2018, where she allegedly assisted Jose Medina-Perez, a twice-deported Dominican national, in evading Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Newton District Court. Joseph has been suspended without pay and is accused of instructing her clerk to mislead an ICE agent, as well as turning off courtroom recording devices to help Medina-Perez escape through a rear exit.
In a defense that treads a fine line, her attorney described Joseph as a “folk hero.” According to the lawyer, “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.” This duality spotlights the deep divisions in public opinion surrounding her actions.
The incident has become a topic of local lore in Boston. The lawyer added, “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.” Such remarks indicate that the narrative surrounding Joseph is fueled by public sentiment and media portrayal rather than just legal proceedings.
The public response has been strong. One social media user stated, “In my opinion… Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph is guilty of releasing an illegal out her back door, so he could avoid ICE. Judges have to be held to a higher standard. They cannot rule from the bench based on political ideologies and/or feelings… they have to rule based upon our Constitutional Law!” This outcry reflects a broader frustration with perceived judicial overreach motivated by personal beliefs.
Judge Joseph is not alone in facing scrutiny regarding the misuse of judicial power. In Florida, Judge Dianna Tennis is currently facing a public reprimand after making over 900 illegal political donations, totaling $29,000, to Democratic candidates. This violation of judicial ethics rules highlights a troubling trend in the judiciary where political affiliations might override impartiality.
Initially brought to attention by conservative commentator Libs of TikTok, Tennis’s actions have drawn widespread condemnation. Her reported behavior violates Canons 1, 2A, and 7A (1)(e) of the judicial code, which prohibit judges from making contributions to political organizations or candidates. One commentator weighed in, “Resign? She should be arrested.” Such comments illustrate the mounting pressure on judges to maintain the integrity expected from their positions.
A filing from the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission provides additional context. It states, “Judge Tennis admitted to her misconduct and has cooperated with the Commission in all respects during this inquiry. She has expressed deep regret that her conduct could have eroded the public’s perception of the integrity of the judiciary and judicial elections.” This acknowledgment of wrongdoing does little to soothe public anger; instead, it raises further questions about accountability.
Labeling Judge Tennis “far and away the most prolific offender” in this scenario underscores the potential extent of the problem within the judiciary. The public is wrestling with the implications of judges acting on political motivations rather than strictly adhering to the rule of law.
These instances involving Judges Joseph and Tennis highlight a critical juncture for the judiciary. They raise profound questions about the integrity of those sworn to uphold the law. The perception of impartiality in the court system is paramount, and as these controversies unfold, the demand for accountability grows stronger. The actions of these judges will not just affect their careers but may also impact public trust in the entire judicial system.
"*" indicates required fields
