Judges are supposed to be the neutral part of the government. Not only ought they just call balls and strikes, it is constitutionally vital that they do so. Judicial neutrality is a threshold separation of powers issue. Why? Because that neutral evaluation of the facts should act as an important buffer to separate the abuses that come down from the Executive branch, namely the police, from legitimate government action. In these cases, the idea of separation is a sham if it turns out that the judge was helping out the police along the way. In short, if you’ve had a case involving the police before Judge Erin P. Gall, a little suspicion about the outcome is probably warranted. From the ABA Journal:
A judge in Oneida County, New York, should be removed from the bench for “truly egregious” misconduct during a July 2022 high school graduation party outside a friend’s home, according to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Judge Erin P. Gall, a judge on New York’s trial-level supreme court, attended the party with her husband and then-18-year-old son. According to a July 22 press release, the commission determined that Gall engaged “in a racially offensive, profane, prolonged public diatribe” in which “she repeatedly invoked her judicial office, threatened gun violence, and both criticized and pledged favored treatment for the police.”
“We respectfully disagree with the determination,” [Gall’s lawyer] said.
To understand this “disagreement,” let’s dig into the facts a bit. Going in order of importance — an order I admit is up for debate — let’s start with her declaration of fealty to the police.
When a police officer told Gall that they could “end up in front of your court” for violating the teens’ civil rights, Gall replied, “Listen, but guess what, the good part is—the good part is I’m always on your side. You know I’d take anyone down for you guys. You know that. You know that. You know I am on your side.”
For the judges and readers at home who give a damn about the rule of law, “I am on your side” is the thing you say to a nervous middle schooler during their first big football game, not something you tell a cop worried about violating 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Yes, threatening to shoot a kid for picking up their car keys is bad — we will get to that — but a judge coming out and encouraging the police to violate civil rights because they’re all on the same team is the type of interaction that casts a shadow on the very notion of due process. That doesn’t just make her look bad; that makes all judges look bad. It is very hard to maintain the fantasy of the judiciary as the neutral branch of the government when what we see them do is act as handmaidens to coup enthusiasts and the boys in blue.
Now that that’s out of the way, let’s get to the shooting teenagers bit of Her Honor’s story.
New Hartford, New York, police arrived after midnight. Gall identified herself as a judge and did the same when she screamed at four Black teenagers looking for lost car keys.
“You got to leave!” Gall said in comments caught on video. “You’re not going to find your keys. You got to call an Uber and get off the property. That’s what I’m saying. No. Done. You’re done. Done, done, done. Get off the property! And’s that’s from Judge Gall! I’m a f- – -ing judge! And I’m telling you! Get off the f- – -ing property!”…
Gall responded that she would call the police if the teens return.
“They’ll be arrested, or they’ll be shot on the property,” she said. “Because when they trespass, you can shoot them on the property. I’ll shoot them on the property.”
Now, I’m not sure what her Crim Law professor taught her about trespass, but you can’t just shoot teenagers for picking up their car keys if the car keys happened to land on your front lawn. Self-defense arguments usually revolve on claims of immediate and unlawful threats of violence, not if the car keys were on your petunias at the time of shooting. New York is a castle doctrine state for God’s sake and, get this, even that doesn’t bless shooting teenagers for trying to get their car keys back. If the average Above the Law reader heard a studying 1L claim what Judge Gall did, they’d either jump in to correct them or feel a rush of empathy and compassion for whatever sorry soul has to read and grade the essay they’re going to hand in. A judge being that egregiously wrong on when it is and isn’t okay to put a bullet in a teenager’s head would make me question what other legal quackery is going on when the gavel is in their hands.
In summary, the Commission had this to say:
Gall “irreparably damaged her integrity by repeatedly invoking her judicial office and forfeited her ability to be and to appear to be impartial, particularly as it relates to race and law enforcement personnel,” the commission said in its determination. “Given the range of her misconduct, members of the public can have no confidence in her ability to preside in a fair and unbiased manner.”
In a statement, Robert H. Tembeckjian, the commission’s administrator, said it is “utterly unacceptable for a judge to threaten gun violence, exhibit racial prejudice” and “promise favorable treatment for the police.”
I’m not sure what’s left for Gall or her lawyer to be in disagreement with.
Judge Who Threatened To Shoot Black Teens For Trespassing Should Be Ousted, Judicial Conduct Commission Says [ABA Journal]
