In the Fifth Judicial District of Central New York, Erin Gall, an elected Supreme Court justice, has ceased her resistance to a state commission’s proposed dismissal due to racially insensitive commentary at a private gathering. Gall, who holds court in Oneida County, has chosen to accept the ruling, as evidenced by her recent letter of resignation, submitted to the state Court of Appeals.
Gall’s written resignation, dated December 15, has come into the public view following a period of paid suspension that commenced after the state’s judicial watchdog body decided on her removal last July. This decision stemmed from Gall’s dealings with law enforcement and civilians at a high school graduation party earlier that same year. Her behavior and language at the event, which was largely deemed as racially offensive and improper, became the crux of the commission’s ruling.
During the troubling incident, Gall seemingly leveraged her judicial position to intimidate a group of Black teenagers present at the party. Her comments served to degrade their intellect while also issuing threats of violence, creating an unsettling spectacle that was also heavily profanity-laden. This incident, which took place in the town of New Hartford, was significantly intensified by Gall’s repeated invocations of her judicial status, a detail that has garnered much scrutiny.
The length of her interaction with police officers was marked at 80 minutes, throughout which the judge mentioned her bench position over twelve times. Throughout the interaction, she did not shy away from engaging in racially insensitive rhetoric and displaying an evident bias in favor of law enforcement, to an extent that it compromised civil liberties.
The incident was sparked by the arrival of uninvited teenagers at a party where Gall was an attendee. The situation escalated to a point where law enforcement was called to intervene due to outbreaks of fights between the party crowd. Gall’s woes were amplified by personal involvement, as her son and husband were drawn into the skirmishes, prompting her to stress on this fact while appearing before the commission.
Following the commission’s ruling, Gall sought a review of the decision from the Court of Appeals in mid-August, hopeful for a sanction less severe than removal. Nonetheless, by December end, her attorney filed a motion to retract her appeal, notifying the court that Gall had resigned from her position.
Gall’s affidavit hinted at the emotional strain she endured throughout the process, describing the decision to let go of her hopes for continuing on the bench as one of her most difficult choices. She elaborated that her choice to step down was driven by the desire to shield her family from the incoming tide of death threats and ill-famed publicity, a consequence of her actions at the party being widely broadcast.
Amidst allegations of racial bias, Gall has vigorously defended her stance, arguing that her reactions weren’t racially driven. She adamantly disagrees with the commission’s characterization of her conduct as racially offensive, maintaining that the facts of the incident itself shouldn’t paint her actions with a racial brush.
Even while facing the commission, Gall seemed to underplay her actions. It took repeated questioning and review of police body cam footage for Gall to acknowledge her condescending remarks concerning the intellect of the group of black teens. Despite this admittance, she still maintains that her statements were not racially biased.
Notably, one of Gall’s statements caught on the body cam footage was a remark on the intelligence of the teenagers coupled with an assertion that ‘they’re not going to business school,’ which she later revealed to be a reference to her son’s future education plans. He was set to attend business school in the upcoming fall.
While the commission finally decided in favor of removing Gall from her judicial role, commission member Nina M. Moore published an opinion reaffirming her concerns towards the judge’s racially insensitive behavior. Moore, an author and Colgate University professor specializing in systematic racism in criminal justice, emphasized the damage such bias could bring to Gall’s judicial credibility.
Remarkably, the commission’s history reflects its firm stance on such matters. For the span of 46 years, it had dictated 184 removal decisions. Meanwhile, the state Court of Appeals only lessened 10 of such removal judgments to censures or admonishments but never dismissed a sanction initially proposed as an appeal for removal.
Elected as a Republican in 2011, Gall’s term on the bench, originally set for a 14-year stint, was cut short, with her intended tenure extending up to December 2025. Her last known annual salary amounted to $232,600.