The Judicial Conduct Commission of New York State has recently addressed the controversial remarks made by Oneida County-based Justice Erin P. Gall during a high school graduation party in 2022. This came after Justice Gall, in her dialogue with police officers and civilians at the gathering, let loose remarks that were perceived to show a racial bias. Despite the unfavorable optics of the situation, Gall is on record at the commission asserting that these implications should not lead to her dismissal as she, indeed, does not harbor any genuine racial bias.
A news release from the Commission detailed how Gall was involved in what they described as a ‘lengthy, obscene, and racially insensitive public outburst’ at the aforementioned party in New Hartford on July 2, 2022. This situation escalated after unexpected teenage guests, including a group of Black youths, arrived at the party. Disputes ensued, leading to the intervention of the police. Notably, both Gall’s husband and son were embroiled in these confrontations, a fact she reported to the commission as a precursor to her controversial statement.
Gall was found to have conversed about the intellect of the Black teenagers in manners that could be deemed racially biased. As caught on the police body camera footage, she stated, ‘They don’t appear particularly smart,’ further insinuating, ‘One can safely assume they’re not heading for a business school.’ This statement was in reference to her son who was set to join a business school at Boston College.
During the hearing, Gall argued that her dialectic could have been intended for a condescending police officer. However, after reviewing the body camera footage, she conceded that her comments were indeed targeted at the group of Black teens. When posed with the question as to whether or not her remarks were racially biased, she categorically denied such claims.
On her part, Gall insisted that the color of the teenagers’ skin never played a role in her comments. In her words: ‘I never recognized them as Black males, nor do I discern color. I’m not a racist. Our family has close ties with several people we affectionately consider aunts and uncles, who happen to be of color.’
Gall’s promise of using a firearm against the Black teens should they trespass again, she maintains, did not stem from race. When quizzed about the perception created by her, a white judge, threatening Black teens, she retorted that she did not foresee it as ‘a race issue’.
In her discourse, Gall repeatedly alluded to her position as a judge — among both the police and the teens involved. She later conceded in her testimony that she shouldn’t have invoked her official position at all, asserting that her identity as a judge was already known to them. ‘Proclaiming that I’m a judge’, Gall testified, ‘was ludicrous, incomprehensible, and inappropriate at every level. But everyone already knew me as a judge.’
Her portrayal of the area as her ‘jurisdiction’ was another critical issue. Asserting that she wasn’t referencing her judicial region, Gall did acknowledge, however, that she understood how it could have been erroneously interpreted as her doing so. Gall elaborated further that by ‘jurisdiction’ she merely meant her locality. ‘What I implied by jurisdiction’, testified Gall, ‘was simply my place of residence—in New Hartford.’
Following the commission’s verdict to dismiss Gall, her attorney launched a counterargument in an attempt to mitigate the punishment. Represented by Robert F. Julian, Gall argued that she would likely have acted similarly, regardless of the teenagers’ race. Besides, Julian cited earlier traumatic experiences, specifically an assault Gall faced in her first year of college, in an attempt to explain her reaction. The attorney also firmly rejected any suggestions of covert prejudice within the remarks made by the judge.
Two out of the 11 commission members abstained from the vote. The remaining nine members unanimously agreed on Gall’s discharge, as confirmed by a spokesperson for the commission. Upon reaching the final determination regarding Gall’s removal recommendation, commission member Nina M. Moore, shed light on her reservations about the racially biased comments.
Moore, a professor at Colgate University and a renowned author specializing in systematic racism within the criminal justice system, acknowledged the likelihood of Gall’s racial bias harming her judicial legitimacy. In her concurring opinion, Moore disputed Julian’s defense, stating: ‘If there was a therapeutic cure for racially charged behavior, the world would surely be better off. Until then, Judge Erin Gall should not preside over cases involving Black litigants who, under her authority, would merely rely on blind faith.’
Gall has been granted a 30-day window to challenge the commission’s decision. Failing to do so would result in her removal from the bench. Having embarked on her judicial journey as a Republican, she has been serving since her election in 2011. Her current tenure stretches until December 2025. Gall enjoys a substantial annual salary of $232,600.
In its 46-year history, the commission has issued a total of 184 removal findings. Yet, the State Court of Appeals has only reduced a mere ten of these removal decisions to either a directive or a reprimand. Notably, till this day, it has never overruled a sanction that was initiated as a request for removal.