Panel Releases Videos of Local Judge Threatening to Shoot Black Teens

"That's how Judge Gall rolls," Supreme Court Justice Erin Gall told 4 black teens in some way involved in a fight at a 2022 graduation party in New Hartford. "We're clearing this place out," she yelled as she was attempting to coerce police into taking action against the teens, who came to the party after they were invited by a friend on social media.

Those comments caught on police body cams, along with several others including threats she would shoot the teens, are listed as exhibits in the judicial misconduct case against Gall in which the recommendation is that she be immediately removed from the bench. Gall is expected to appeal.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct Determination claims that Judge Gall "engaged in a loud, public, prolonged and profanity-laced confrontation with responding police officers and others at the scene during which she repeatedly invoked her judicial office, made comments that cast doubt on her ability to be impartial as a judge by, inter alia, stating Black teenagers at the scene “don’t look like they’re that smart”, stating to police officers that if the Black teenagers returned to look for a missing car key, “. . . when they trespass you can shoot them on the property."

The Commission, made up of 11 legal experts, claim Gall didn't stop there, as explained in their decision.

"I’ll shoot them on the property” and telling a police officer that she was “always on your side” when the officer expressed concern about a possible civil rights suit in her court if the Black teenagers were arrested at respondent’s urging. The Complaint further alleged that respondent detracted from the dignity of her judicial office..."

Gall has challenged the Commission's determination by claiming "she was acting as a mother and wife; on the bench she is fair, honest, respectful and conscientious toward all litigants and lawyers; and her conduct on July 2, 2022, was the result of extreme emotional distress triggered by an event associated with an assault that occurred against her back in 1990."

In the Concurring Opinion by Professor Nina M. Moore who was joined by Judge Fernando M. Camacho, Gall's defense of extreme emotional distress from a 1990 attack was dismissed as being a defense that left many questions to be answered.

"Many, many questions remain as to the precise mechanisms by which respondent’s victimization of 1990 accounts for her choices 34 years later, what triggers the trauma effects, and why the effects show up in such peculiar forms. It is difficult to reconcile respondent’s after-the-fact claims about her aversion to violence due to the 1990 incident with her boasting on July 2, 2022 of having taught her son to “put a smack down” and “to kick the shit out of anyone who hits him first.” This, as she repeatedly hit her fist into the palm of her hand."

The Commission commended the responding police officers from New Hartford, as well as others from surrounding agencies.

"The remarkably temperate decision-making of responding police officers is commendable. Five different law enforcement agencies were marshalled to deal with numerous street fights. Throughout, the responding officers judiciously managed the improper demands of a White female judge for removal on the one hand and, on the other, four Black male teenagers’ insistence on staying put to find a car key—despite the precarious situation at hand.

The point of note is that police officers had to explain to a judge the multiple reasons why they could not lawfully submit to her pleas to handcuff, detain, arrest and/or remove the teenagers. The officers warned Judge Gall that it would be unlawful for her to shoot someone simply due to trespassing, as she threatened."

The Concurring decision further criticized Gall's behavior, labeling it racially charged in a way that might make it difficult for black litigants to feel they would receive fair treatment in Gall's courtroom.

"Black litigants, attorneys, court staff and others who enter a New York state courtroom are entitled to equal justice. They should not have to carry the additional burden of wondering whether their matters will be adjudicated by a judge of sound and sober mind, or a traumatized judge with a proclivity toward racial stereotyping and racially tainted directives. Inexplicably, respondent’s 1990 trauma took the form of racialized behavior on July 2, 2022. Her derisive deployment of Black English (aka “African American vernacular,” “Ebonics,” and “blaccent”) is jolting.  

She averred: “You know what you’re not going to find your mom’s keys. You gotta ask her for a second set, bro! … That’s what I’m telling you right now. That’s how I roll. That’s how I roll. That’s how Mrs. G rolls. That’s how Judge Gall rolls. We’re clearing this place out.” 

Judge Gall’s mocking "blaccent" is in addition to the other racialized behaviors noted in the majority opinion, including her assessment of the four Black male teenagers as less than Business School material."

The Commission's decision:

"Given the extent and range of respondent’s misconduct, particularly her repeated invocation of her judicial office to the police and to the teenagers, her remarks that created the appearance of racial bias and bias in favor of law enforcement and her decision to complain about how the police handled the matter approximately two weeks after the incident while in the Oneida County Courthouse, we find that respondent engaged in “truly egregious” misconduct.  Respondent committed multiple violations of several Rules, acted in a manner unbecoming a judge, brought reproach upon the judiciary and irreparably damaged her ability to serve as a judge. By reason of the foregoing, the Commission determines that the appropriate disposition is removal."