Jurors in the felony bribery trial of a former state Supreme Court judge yesterday watched surveillance videos showing Gerald Garson accepting cash and cigars from a divorce attorney who frequently appeared before him.

Another excerpt showed the judge in his robing room in a Brooklyn courthouse secretly ridiculing litigants as “schmucks,” “hustlers,” “crazy and stupid” — and at one point joking that children would be better off if a father seeking custody would die.

Later in the tape, Judge Garson promised to rule in favor of a father even while acknowledging that the mother should win.

“The big thing is, your guy is going to have a win,” Judge Garson secretly told a lawyer, Paul Siminovsky, who represented the husband in a divorce case. “She’s going to get s—-.”

The excerpts were played in the latest corruption trial being pursued by the Kings County district attorney, Charles Hynes. If convicted, Judge Garson could face a prison sentence of more than 30 years.

Prosecutors are trying to convince a jury of 11 men and one woman that Judge Garson, 74, took cash and free meals and beverages in exchange for ruling in favor of clients represented by his friends. Judicial conduct rules prohibit judges from communicating with attorneys with pending business without the permission of the opposing side.

According to prosecutors, Judge Garson accepted more than 100 free meals and drinks from Mr. Siminovsky, who cooperated with prosecutors after his own arrest. He wore a wire to ensnare his dining partner, and later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.

Since the arrest of Judge Garson, Mr. Hynes has been trying to unearth systemic corruption on the Brooklyn bench. His investigation has led to a half dozen convictions, including several of the former Brooklyn party boss, Clarence Norman. Still, Mr. Hynes has so far been unable to directly prove that judgeships were bought and sold in Brooklyn.

Judge Garson’s defense attorneys said their client may have acted improperly by socializing with Mr. Siminovsky, but they argued that he was impartial whenever he donned judicial robes and took the bench.

“You know what?” the former judge says on a recording in which he improperly discusses the outcome of pending divorce case. “Justice is being done.”