Judge Jeffrey Gershuny Censured for Gun-and-Stapler Trick

What Happened on August 5

The hearing concerned a street search that produced a handgun. The officer who made the search testified about seeing an L-shaped object in the defendant’s crossbody bag. Gershuny called a recess at the close of the prosecution’s direct examination, went to chambers, and came back with a shopping bag and a stapler. Still in recess, he drew his personal SIG Sauer P365 from its holster, ejected the magazine, and set the pistol on the bench, where a four-inch lip hid it from everyone but a single court officer. The determination does not identify the courthouse; the Queens Daily Eagle reported the hearing as having taken place in Brooklyn Criminal Court.

When the proceeding resumed, defense counsel cross-examined the officer. Only then did Gershuny announce that he had clarification questions, and he questioned the officer at length about the L-shaped object. He called what followed a little experiment and said he wanted to understand the officer’s point of view, adding that what he had asked his security to do was kind of unprecedented. He held up the empty gun for the courtroom, announced he was putting it into a Five Below shopping bag, and then put the gun by his foot and the stapler in the bag. He held up the bag and repeatedly stated or implied that his firearm was inside it.

The prosecutor objected when the experiment was proposed, arguing that neither the gun nor the bag matched the ones in the case and that the night could not be recreated. Gershuny overruled her. She objected again after it was over.

The Court Officer Said No

Before he went back on the record, Gershuny told a court officer what he intended to do and asked her to confirm the weapon was unloaded. She said she was uncomfortable, telephoned her supervising captain, and asked Gershuny to hold the case until the captain arrived. The captain came to the bench and told him she had spoken with her own supervisor, who had advised against it, and then told him not to hand the gun to anybody. Gershuny does not recall being told that advice but does not dispute that it was given. He proceeded anyway.

Both officers are named in the determination and are referred to here by role. The record is clear that the objection came from inside the room before anything happened, and that it came from staff with no power to stop a judge.

The Witness Did Not Take the Bait

Confronted with a bag the judge insisted held a gun, the officer repeatedly declined to say he could see one. He said he saw an L-shaped object that had the appearance of a firearm, that he would have to frisk it to confirm, and that both the object and the contours of the bag looked different from what he had encountered on the street. At the close of his questioning Gershuny revealed the stapler and told the witness that what he had identified was a Swingline.

So the demonstration did not catch the officer out. He gave a careful answer that distinguished appearance from confirmation and flagged that the props were not the evidence. A demonstration that proves nothing is still improper if it is built on a falsehood told to a sworn witness, which is what the Commission found, but the transcript does not show a witness exposed. It shows a witness holding his ground, and the Commission’s own administrator said so: To their credit, the witness testified carefully, and the judge was apologetic and cooperative with the Commission.

He Then Used It in His Ruling

Gershuny suppressed the gun. In explaining the ruling from the bench he said the officer had made up a convoluted story about seeing a bulge, and he referenced his experiment as one of several factors influencing his decision. What he did not reference, as the determination points out, was his own fictitious story about a gun in the bag.

That is the neutrality problem. He created the material, he was the only person in the room who knew it was false, and then he weighed it as a judge. The Commission expressly took no position on whether the suppression ruling was right, noting in a footnote that the question would have been for an appellate court. It never got tested: the People declined to prosecute, the case was dismissed, and no appeal was filed. The defendant was the beneficiary, which makes this an awkward case for the usual frame. Misconduct that happens to help a defendant is still misconduct, and it is also the version least likely to be appealed by anyone.

The Rules He Broke

New York’s courtesy rule is 100.3(B)(3), and it was not charged. What was charged at 100.3(B)(4) is the rule against manifesting bias or prejudice in the performance of judicial duties, which is a different and heavier allegation. The Commission’s written analysis discusses only 100.1, 100.2(A), 100.3(B)(1) and 100.3(B)(7); it lists 100.3(B)(4) among the violations without explaining it.

How It Works in Texas

Texas Rule of Evidence 605 says: The presiding judge may not testify as a witness at the trial. A party need not object to preserve the issue. Almost everything else in the rules requires a contemporaneous objection to preserve. The judge-as-witness problem does not, because the rule assumes nobody can realistically object to the judge in the judge’s own courtroom, which is exactly what the record here shows.

On the ethics side, Texas Canon 2A requires a judge to comply with the law and to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Canon 3B(2) requires a judge to maintain professional competence in the law, Canon 3B(3) requires order and decorum in proceedings, and Canon 3B(4) requires a judge to be patient, dignified and courteous to witnesses among others. Note that the Texas analogue of New York’s charged bias rule is Canon 3B(5) together with 3B(6), not the courtesy provision. For the Texas disciplinary process end to end, see our explainer, Who Polices Texas Judges? The SCJC Explained.

A judge staging a demonstration and then relying on his own creation is at least arguably supplying evidence, and Rule 605 is where that argument starts. The series has a closer cousin than it might appear: in Case File No. 47, a Wisconsin judge was suspended for leaving the neutral role in the other direction, sending her bailiff and then driving to a hospital herself to arrest a defendant who had missed a hearing. Different conduct, same failure mode, a judge who decided to do the work rather than preside over it.

How It Played in the Press

Coverage was brief and mostly accurate on the stunt. The ABA Journal got the part that matters right, reporting that the officer said he could not see that the item was a gun and testified only to an L-shaped object he would have to frisk to confirm. The New York Daily Record led with the Commission administrator’s statement. The Queens Daily Eagle ran the fullest account and is the only source placing the hearing in Brooklyn Criminal Court, which the determination itself does not state.

The Eagle also flattened the testimony in the way the determination contradicts, describing the officer as having testified that he had spotted a gun in the defendant’s bag. He did not, and the distinction is the whole point: the experiment failed because the witness refused to say the thing the judge kept asserting. An account that has the officer claiming to see a gun turns a careful witness into a careless one and the demonstration into a successful trap, which is the reverse of what the transcript shows.

Two things went largely unreported. The first is that the court officer said no before any of it happened, and her captain relayed a supervisor’s advice against it. The second is the Commission’s recommendation to the Office of Court Administration, which is the only part of this determination likely to change anything for anyone other than this judge.

Where Things Stand Now

The censure is not final. Gershuny was recorded as having received the determination on October 9, 2026, which starts a thirty-day window in which he may ask the Chief Judge for review by the New York Court of Appeals, putting the close of that window around November 8. If he does not request review, the Commission censures him as determined. He stipulated to both the facts and the sanction, so a request would be a surprise. He remains on the bench; censure does not remove a judge. For scale, the Court of Appeals has reviewed 102 Commission determinations since 1978, and three requests were pending when this one issued.

The Commission also did something broader. New York law lets certain New York City judges carry licensed handguns in court, and the Commission found Gershuny had a right to have his firearm there under Penal Law sections 265.01-e(3)(g) and 400.00(2)(d). What it faulted was that he did not keep it safeguarded on his person while on the bench, contrary to Advisory Opinion 06-51 of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. It noted that the Office of Court Administration has no policy addressing a judge’s possession of a licensed handgun in a New York City court, and urged the agency to review the rules on judges carrying weapons in courthouses, to familiarize all judges with safe procedures, and to make sure court officers are advised when weapons are present. That recommendation is the part of this determination most likely to outlive the case.

Sources

PRIMARY SOURCES

• New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Determination, In the Matter of Jeffrey A. Gershuny, dated October 2, 2026. Thirteen pages, including the Agreed Statement of Facts, the findings quoted above and the rules cited. Robert H. Tembeckjian, with Mark Levine and Vickie Ma of counsel, for the Commission; the Law Office of Michael C. Farkas, PLLC, by Michael C. Farkas, for the respondent. cjc.ny.gov (pdf)
• New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, news release on the Gershuny determination (Oct. 13, 2026), the source for the October 9 receipt date, the administrator’s statement and the sanction statistics. cjc.ny.gov (pdf)
• 22 NYCRR 100.1 (upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary). regulations.justia.com
• 22 NYCRR 100.2 (avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety). regulations.justia.com
• 22 NYCRR 100.3(B), confirming that the courtesy rule is 100.3(B)(3) and that the rule charged at 100.3(B)(4) concerns bias or prejudice. regulations.justia.com
• Matter of Myers, 67 N.Y.2d 550 (1986), the source of the holding that deception is antithetical to the role of a judge. courtlistener.com
• Matter of Mazzei, 81 N.Y.2d 568 (1993), on the right to insist upon the highest level of judicial honesty and integrity. courtlistener.com
• Matter of Steinberg, 51 N.Y.2d 74 (1980), on the judge sworn to uphold the truth-seeking process. courtlistener.com
• Matter of Lonschein, 50 N.Y.2d 569 (1980), on measuring judicial conduct against exacting standards of scrutiny. courtlistener.com

NEWS COVERAGE

• ABA Journal: Judge censured following ‘little experiment’ in court with gun, stapler. abajournal.com
• Queens Daily Eagle: Former Queens judge censured for using gun to trick police officer during a hearing (Oct. 14, 2026), the fullest account and the only one to place the hearing in Brooklyn Criminal Court. queenseagle.com
• New York Daily Record: NYC judge censured over courtroom handgun stunt (Oct. 15, 2026). nydailyrecord.com

REFERENCE

• Texas Rules of Evidence, effective September 1, 2025, for Rule 605, Judge’s Competency as a Witness. txcourts.gov (pdf)
• Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, official text as amended through August 22, 2002, for Canons 2A, 3B(2), 3B(3), 3B(4), 3B(5) and 3B(6). txcourts.gov (pdf)
• Deandra Grant Law: Who Polices Texas Judges? The SCJC Explained. texasdwisite.com
• Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct: how to file a complaint against a Texas judge. scjc.texas.gov

• This post summarizes a publicly filed judicial-conduct determination and news reporting, as of November 2026, and is not legal advice. The determination is not final: Judge Gershuny may request review by the New York Court of Appeals within thirty days of receipt, recorded as October 9, 2026. He stipulated to the facts and to the sanction of censure, and the Commission expressly took no position on the merits of his suppression ruling, noting that the question would have been for an appellate court. The two court officers, the testifying officer, the prosecutor, defense counsel and the defendant are referred to here by role and are named nowhere in this file, and the Commission’s own anonymized style for the underlying case is likewise not reproduced. The quotations are from the determination and the Commission’s news release. The observation that the Queens Daily Eagle misdescribed the officer’s testimony is a comparison of that account against the determination, not an allegation of anything more.