New York State Supreme Court judge Erin Gall made headlines this summer for her actions at a graduation party in 2022 that devolved into a street brawl. A group of teenagers, coming to pick up a friend, were swept into the fights and lost their keys in the area. Gall alleged that the teenagers assaulted her son and husband and insisted that the police who came to break up the fights arrest them, also threatening to shoot them if they returned to the property looking for keys.
The New York Commission on Judicial Conduct (NYCJC) subpoenaed Gall to a disciplinary hearing on November 15, 2022. On July 17, 2024, the NYCJC voted 9-0 to remove Gall from the bench, citing that her misconduct undermines public confidence in her integrity and impartiality.
The Court’s Rationale for Judge Gall’s Removal
The commission served Gall a Notice of Formal Written Complaint on May 23, 2023, which itemized several reasons supporting her removal from New York State’s 5th District Judicial Court.
1. Leveraged Her Professional Role for Preferential Treatment
Gall made gratuitous references to her judicial title in her exchange with police officers, appearing to seek preferential treatment for her position, and “thus lent the prestige of her office to advance her own and her friends’ private interests.”
The commission found that Gall invoked her judicial title “more than a dozen times,”abusing her position to pressure police into punitive actions against the black teenagers. When an officer explained that he couldn’t follow her recommendations without risking a violation of the teens civil rights, Gall laughed, asserting “Ok, I know the law. I’m a judge!...I’ve done this for a million years.”
Judge Erin Gall (far left of photo) agrees to an officer’s recommendation to deliver the missing car keys that a group of black teenagers lost in the area to the New Hartford Police Department. Photo Source: New Hartford Police Body Cam Footage
2. Threatened Unjustifiable Penal Action Against Responding Officers
While abusing her title in order to influence the NHPD, Gall was frequently critical of their work, questioning the adequacy of their response and conduct: “I’m not sure if I’ll need to call the Chief of Police,” she said, referring to a lieutenant she knows at the NHPD.
When Gall made threats against the black teenagers, NHPD Officer Eric Capelli responded “this isn’t your house.” Gall then demanded he tell her his name, and claimed she would report him to his superior for his conduct.
3. Appearance of Partiality Towards Law Enforcement
NHPD Officer Norman Lyke shared concerns with Gall that he and other officers could find themselves in her court for civil rights violations, to which she responded “You know I’d take anyone down for you guys.”
Gall then changed the conversation to ERPO’s or Extreme Risk Protection Orders. She encouraged the police to avoid them because it’s inconvenient to have to handle them in the middle of the night. Extreme Risk Protection Order is a “court-issued order of protection prohibiting a person from purchasing, possessing or attempting to purchase or possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun,” according to Section 6340, Article 63-A of New York State’s Civil Procedures Law and Rules. The commission found that Gall “improperly belittled an important public safety tool and appeared to be attempting to ingratiate herself with the law enforcement personnel at the scene.” Gall’s troubling comments about ERPOs come at a time of persisting youth gun violence in the Oneida County area.
4. Appearance of Racial Bias:
The commission found that Gall had frequently used blaccent along with African American Vernacular English to mock the black teenagers and made multiple comments demeaning their intelligence and character. Although many teens at the party were intoxicated and participated in fights, she incriminated Carter’s group exclusively and accused Havo and Dooley of assaulting her son without sufficient evidence.
5. Officers Explaining the Law to Her, the Judge
It concerned the commission that the police needed to explain the reasons why they couldn’t handle the situation the way Gall insisted. They explained why “they could not lawfully submit to her pleas to handcuff, detain, arrest and/or remove the teenagers,” without sufficient evidence that they’ve committed a crime and that it’s “unlawful for her to shoot someone simply due to trespassing.”
Had the police not intervened in this way, four black teenagers would have been wrongfully indicted and deprived of their civil rights.
Judge Erin Gall (center of photo) explained to an officer that if she, the host of the party, or the police find the four black teenagers back on the property searching for their missing car keys they’ll either be arrested or shot “because when they trespass you can shoot them on the property.” Photo Source: New Hartford Police Body Cam Footage
6. Personal Issues Potentially Influencing Public Interest:
At the disciplinary hearing, Gall attributed her misconduct to her own experience with assault as a student at Boston College in 1990. Already existing skepticism about the plausibility of her defense deepened when Gall sought a forensic psychological evaluation immediately after being notified of formal charges against her.
Evidence also revealed that Gall tried to influence witness testimony “It bears mentioning too that Judge Gall concedes her conduct on July 2, 2022 was triggered only in part by her reaction to a 1990 assault,” the commission reported.
“The judiciary exists to serve the public,” said the commission, and “the emotional and psychological problems of individual judges” shouldn’t affect the judiciary’s ability to serve the public.
7. Preserving Equal Justice in NY State Courts:
Gall’s noted racial bias led the commission to make the point that “Black litigants, attorneys, and staff are entitled to equal justice,”that they shouldn’t have to worry about entering a courtroom before a judge and wonder if “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.”
Opposing the findings of research articles Gall presented in her defense that “people resort to racial stereotyping when they get angry,” the court argued that no scholarship exists to date supporting that “racial animus is confined to moments of anger.”
What’s Next?
As of Aug 1, 2024, Gall has been suspended with pay. Her attorney, Robert F. Julian, submitted a letter to the Court of Appeals requesting that the sanction of removal be reduced to either a censure or admonition. The commission administrator and counsel, Robert Tembeckjian, condemned Judge Gall’s actions stating that "It is utterly unacceptable for a judge to threaten gun violence, exhibit racial prejudice, promise favorable treatment for the police, or disparage a law intended to keep guns away from dangerous people. Any one of these things would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice."
Comments