NEWTON, Mass. — An attorney who facilitated the exit of his illegal immigrant client from a courthouse testified Monday that he believed he was acting with judicial approval during a controversial maneuver that has sparked a judicial conduct hearing. David Jellinek, the lawyer involved, stated he recognized the risks of his actions but felt they were justifiable under the circumstances.
The hearing by the Commission on Judicial Conduct revolves around Newton District Court Judge Shelley Joseph, who faces civil charges for allegedly collaborating with Jellinek and a court officer to help his client, Jose Medina-Perez, evade Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Jellinek’s testimony marked the first day of proceedings focused on the allegations surrounding an event from 2018.
“I did what I believed was right for my client,” Jellinek said. “I thought it was on the edge, but not unethical or illegal.” His testimony emerged as part of a deal with federal prosecutors, who dropped previous charges against Joseph in exchange for her cooperation with the commission.
The case against Joseph stems from accusations that she interfered with federal agents attempting to execute a removal order on Medina-Perez, who was also facing drug charges and an outstanding warrant from Pennsylvania. Although the Biden Administration later dismissed the charges, the condition of her immunity hinged on submitting to the commission’s examination.
Judith Fabricant, special counsel for the commission, emphasized the vital issues at stake. “This case addresses the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the Massachusetts judiciary,” she said.
Joseph’s attorney, Elizabeth Mulvey, argued that the narrative around her client has been misrepresented over time, leading to polarized public perception. She claimed that Joseph had been unfairly depicted in the media, stating that it was misleading to suggest that she directly facilitated the escape.
“Today we will have the chance to evaluate all evidence,” Mulvey said. “Judge Joseph was considering the rights of all parties, including those of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”
The hearing officer, Denis McInerney, appointed by the Supreme Judicial Court, will ultimately assess whether Joseph violated the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct. The hearing is expected to remain active throughout the week.
Central to the charges is a brief, off-the-record conversation involving Joseph, Jellinek, and the Assistant District Attorney, which lasts just 52 seconds. During this interaction, Jellinek approached Joseph for a sidebar discussion, explaining his intention to guide his client out of the courthouse without involving ICE.
Jellinek contended that he was given a signal of support from the judge regarding his plan. However, Fabricant argued that Joseph’s demeanor suggested approval of Jellinek’s desire for his client to evade federal agents, raising questions about the ethical boundaries of judicial discretion.
In contrast, Joseph’s attorney, Thomas Hoopes, argued that Jellinek may have misinterpreted Joseph’s remarks concerning the potential for Medina-Perez to be detained rather than released. This nuanced interaction is a pivotal element in the ongoing examination of Joseph’s conduct and decision-making.
The proceedings were adjourned briefly after Jellinek’s testimony and are set to resume at 10 a.m. Tuesday, as the parties prepare for further exploration of the events that unfolded during that critical off-the-record moment.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.