Lawyers for Judge Joseph seek grand jury instructions.

Byline: Kris Olson

Lawyers for Shelley M. Richmond Joseph filed a motion Oct. 29 requesting that the government be ordered to give defense counsel or the court the legal instructions prosecutors provided to the grand jurors who ultimately returned the indictment against the state District Court judge.

That indictment alleged that Joseph conspired to have a non-citizen released from her courtroom to the downstairs lockup area of the Newton District Court building and then through a rear door, rather than through the front door where ICE agents were waiting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512(k), 1512(c)(2) and 2; and 1505 and 2.

Joseph's lawyers argue that the disclosure is justified by the "marriage" of two U.S. District Court cases, one in Massachusetts and one in Maryland.

In the Massachusetts case,United States v. Facteau, the court stated, "Legal instructions provided by prosecutors do not implicate any of the concerns typically cited in support of grand jury secrecy."

According to Joseph's lawyers, that eliminates or at least lessens their burden to demonstrate a particularized need to justify the release of the instructions, as contrasted with actual grand jury testimony.

Joseph's lawyers add that, as inFacteau, Joseph is seeking "the possibility of an irregularity" that could warrant a review of the grand jury process.

Specifically, Joseph's lawyers say they are concerned that the "grand jury may never have been instructed regarding judicial immunity in the context of good faith as a defense (and may well not have been instructed that the offenses charged required a specific intent rather than a general intent)."

They explained that they base this theory on how prosecutors have responded to their argument that Joseph should benefit from judicial immunity.

In the defense team's view, the offenses charged pursuant to 1505 and 1512...