Dozens of retired jurists have rallied behind a Massachusetts state judge indicted in April for allegedly obstructing justice by preventing an immigration official from arresting a man living in the U.S. without permission.

Massachusetts District Court Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph and trial court officer Wesley MacGregor face criminal prosecution for allegedly preventing a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer from taking custody of the fugitive charged with narcotics possession. They were both indicted on one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and two counts of aiding and abetting obstruction of justice. MacGregor also faces one count of perjury. If convicted of the obstruction charges, Joseph and MacGregor each face maximum sentences of up to 25 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000.

Prosecutors alleged the pair helped the defendant evade ICE custody in having him and his attorneys escorted through the back door of the courthouse while an ICE officer waited in the courthouse lobby.

But 61 retired Massachusetts judges showed their support for Joseph, creating the Ad Hoc Committee for Judicial Independence, which filed an amicus brief filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

"The prosecution at issue in this case, if permitted to go forward, will irrevocably tip the scales of justice because it will undermine the very authorities that make balance possible," the retired judges wrote. "As argued in Joseph's motion to dismiss, the prosecution is contrary to law."

The brief added that prosecuting the judge would set a bad precedent.

"If it is crime for judges to perform judicial functions in a manner contrary to executive preferences, then federal and state prosecutors can prosecute judges whenever they deemed to have stymied the actions of law enforcement officers inside a courtroom," the retired judges wrote. "And, members of the public would have every reason to believe that their rights to due process, and to fair and public trials, will give way to the judiciary's interest in avoiding state or federal prison."

Such a prosecution "portends an unacceptable risk of criminal jeopardy that inevitably will chill the ability of state court judges to insure equal justice under the law without fear or favor to any person or point of view," the brief argued.

ICE declined to comment, citing "the fact that Judge Joseph's case is still under active prosecution by the Office of U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts."

Prosecutors responded to the amicus brief Monday afternoon, arguing the committee's arguments resembled a brief already submitted by the judge's attorneys. For instance, the government claimed the committee's brief makes the same argument as Joseph, who claimed she has immunity against criminal prosecution for taking an action she considered to be "courtroom management."

"Two capable law firms representing Judge Joseph have submitted an exhaustive 31-page brief raising numerous legal arguments in support of their client's motion," U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling wrote in the response. "The committee's proposed brief merely echoes the judicial immunity argument already fully developed in Judge Joseph's brief."

Joseph's attorney, Douglas Brooks of LibbyHoopes, did not respond to a request for comment Monday.

Matthew Segal and Daniel McFadden, both with the Boston-based American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts Inc., represent the ad hoc committee of retired judges. Neither attorney immediately responded to a request for comment Monday.

Read more: