Last week, Republican City Attorney Ann Davison asked a higher court to review Municipal Court Judge Pooja Vaddadi’s decision to disqualify an assistant city attorney from prosecuting a case. Vaddadi’s ruling came a week before the City Attorney’s Office (CAO) created a policy to disqualify her from presiding over all new Seattle Municipal Court (SMC) criminal cases. The policy has led to reshuffling within SMC and has limited Vaddadi from performing her duties as an elected judge, all during a chaotic time in the court as it switches its digital case management system, causing some headaches and slow-downs.
It All Begins with Some Shit Talk at the Salon
The story appears to begin on February 20, when Vaddadi ruled that Assistant City Attorney Victoria Pugh could no longer prosecute a case because she’d become a necessary witness for the defense. The case involved two women at the Aveda Arts & Sciences Institute. According to court documents, one of the women reported that the other woman had threatened her by saying: “Let’s go to the alley and I’ll beat your ass.” The first woman later called police to press charges against the second woman, and the CAO filed a harassment case.
One of the witnesses gave three separate and varying statements about what she’d heard the defendant say; one to the investigating officer, one to Pugh, and one to an investigator for the defense. Due to contradictions in the witness’ recollection, defense attorney Mairead Reynolds argued she may need to call Pugh to the stand to ask questions about what the witness had told Pugh during a phone call. Because Pugh took a statement from the witness without recording it and without another person present to hear it, Reynolds argued that Pugh had made herself a witness and could therefore could no longer prosecute that case.
Vaddadi agreed with Reynolds, ruling that the CAO’s office would need to find a different prosecutor to continue with the case, but she denied Reynolds’s request to wholly disqualify the CAO’s office from prosecuting it.
The City objected to Vaddadi’s ruling, noting that Pugh’s conversation had happened in a casual phone call with the witness, not in a full interview, and prosecutors could not be expected to always have another person present for every conversation with a witness. About a month after the ruling, the CAO’s office asked the King County Superior Court to take a second look at it, saying that Vaddadi had acted “illegally” when she told the CAO’s office to reassign the case. The superior court scheduled a hearing to review the case in April.
The Last Straw? The First Straw? It’s Hard to Say, because They Won’t Give Us the Cases
The day after Vaddadi made her decision to disqualify the prosecutor, the CAO’s then-Criminal Division Chief Natalie Walton-Anderson sent an email to two CAO staff members saying that “we’ve had an issue with a Judge Vaddadi ruling” and adding that she needed to “usurp” the first part of a supervisors meeting. Vaddadi’s name became the first item on the next day’s criminal internal briefing agenda. Then, about a week after Vaddadi disqualified a single assistant city attorney on a single criminal case, the CAO’s office began disqualifying her on all future criminal cases in the SMC.
The CAO said the office adopted the policy of disqualifying Vaddadi due to its belief that it cannot receive “fair hearings and trials” before the judge, according to a memo sent out by Walton-Anderson. In the memo, Walton-Anderson made a litany of accusations against Vaddadi, referencing a series of different cases that raised “serious concerns about the conduct and rulings” of the judge, according to CAO spokesperson Tim Robinson.
While the CAO’s office included vague descriptions of the cases that raised “serious concerns,” it has repeatedly refused requests from The Stranger for more information about the cases referenced in the memo. By way of explanation, Robinson said, “It is not a simple matter of just going to ‘grab’ a few cases.” Most recently, he said the CAO would provide the case numbers, but he would not say when. He did, however, point out that attorneys don’t need to provide the case numbers or have any evidence to file “affidavits of prejudice” against Viddadi, which are the forms the prosecutors file to remove her from all their cases.
In filing affidavits of prejudice in cases assigned to Vaddadi, the CAO has chosen a method of disqualifying her from future cases that requires little to no proof that she has done anything wrong or treated the office unfairly. The agency’s refusal to produce any more information about those cases obstructs both Vaddadi’s ability to defend herself and the public’s ability to fairly evaluate whether a judge they elected has a bias against prosecutors. Vaddadi herself has trouble identifying the cases that Walton-Anderson specifically referenced in the memo, saying that after three weeks to think about the memo she’s “even less certain that I know what they’re talking about.”
Before the CAO asked for a review of Vaddadi’s February ruling, the department had never requested the King County Superior Court take a second look at any of her rulings. CAO spokesperson Robinson said that the decision to disqualify Vaddadi from future criminal cases “isn’t a matter of disagreeing with past rulings” but a matter of no longer believing the office could receive a fair hearing before Vaddadi. Seattle Municipal Court Spokesperson Gary Ireland has said that the CAO never brought its concerns about Vaddadi to SMC Presiding Judge Faye R. Chess, nor to the SMC court administrator. That said, Robinson said Walton-Anderson brought her concerns directly to Vaddadi in August. Vaddadi disputes that characterization of their conversation, saying that Walton-Anderson never brought up anything to do with fairness.
SMC has since moved Vaddadi to handle infractions, such as parking and traffic violations, as the CAO’s decision to put an elected judge out of commission continues to strain SMC resources.
It seems insane that the City Attorney can basically judge shop. Shouldn’t the judiciary have independence from the prosecutors office?
@1 as has been noted previously the public defender’s office pulled a similar stunt with another Judge who they didn’t like:
https://crosscut.com/2019/05/controversial-seattle-judge-sees-flurry-cases-pulled-public-defenders
I admit I think its petty, inane and create undue burden’s on a legal system that is already inefficient but its within the current “rules” and in today’s partisan times I doubt you’ll get an legislature willing to look at it since it seemingly benefits both sides of the spectrum when it suits them. The real fix for this is if a judge is making partisan rulings or a city official is acting without merit the voters need to take that into account in the next election.
@2: That “stunt” you cite is not similar.
@3 it’s exactly the same thing. The public defender did not like McKenna’s politics and criticism of repeat offenders and tried to ice him out.
@2/4 from the article you linked: “That’s because, among public defenders in particular, McKenna has gained a reputation for issuing harsher sentences than what’s recommended by the defense and prosecution.”
Sounds like the prosecutors and defense attorneys worked out plea deals, and then the judge imposed harsher sentences than what was agreed. It makes sense that the public defenders would not want him for sentencing. And as far as I can tell they didn’t blanket affidavit him they did it individually but very frequently. So it’s really not the same
@5 tomatos / tomahtos. the net result is the same. he was creating ruling/sentencing they did not like and they took steps to exclude him from cases based on that. Even TS admitted it was the same in their original article
https://www.thestranger.com/news/2024/03/01/79409369/republican-city-attorney-ann-davison-throws-municipal-court-into-chaos
Both of you should just admit both sides play games like this. Doesn’t make it right but its not somehow more despicable because “Republican” Ann Davison is doing it as TS loves to infer.
You have to also believe that the role of a prosecutor is the same as a public defender, which I do not. One works for the state, the other for the public. The standard is different.
@7: That’s nice, but it’s still the role of the judge to make rulings, not the attorneys. If the attorneys don’t like a judge’s rulings, they can appeal to voters in the next election.
(And, although the Stranger doggedly refuses to admit it, City Attorney Davison is just as much an elected official as is Judge Pooja Vaddadi, and the voters will have the final say anyway.)
I’m with DOUG. I understand the City is allowed to strike a judge from its cases, but the situations are materially different. Among other reasons, a public defender represents an individual defendant and has duties specific to that client, which may entail striking a judge who would be bad for the case. The City represents the people of Seattle, and the people of Seattle elected Vaddadi presumably because they wanted her making decisions in cases and liked the ways they anticipated she would rule.
@8 So you’re cool with the same entity making arrests, filing charges, prosecuting, and then choosing which judge hears the case? Seems a bit Putin-esque, nyet?
@7 they both work for the public. The prosecutor works for all of us whereas the public defender only works for the defendant. Who do you think the “state” is? This is not Russia despite your comment comment @10. The judge is supposed to be impartial. The issue here isn’t that Davison is doing something wrong (she’s not) its that TS and commenters like you, @5 and @9 only think its wrong, or that’s its different from when the PD does it, because Davison does not align with you politically.
@11 Regardless of whether the City is allowed to strike a judge–it is–the biggest question seems to be whether the city should, that is, whether it’s appropriate or justified. Regardless of one’s feelings about Davison, no one can answer that question because the City won’t offer specifics. The City’s failure to explain more fully is itself scandalous, as well as a reason to view the City’s claims with skepticism. The memo the City circulated internally clearly discusses specific cases–it shouldn’t be hard!
@11 “The judge is supposed to be impartial.”
Correct. So when defense attorneys commonly disqualify a judge because the judge disregards plea agreements and imposes harsh sentences because he feels like it, that makes sense. The judge isn’t being impartial. On the other hand when prosecutors blanket disqualify a judge because the judge removed a deputy from a case in which she had made herself a witness, that doesn’t make sense. The judge was being impartial CAO just didn’t like the result.
And like 12 said: if this judge really has been making inappropriate and biased decisions why won’t CAO just share them with the public? As you pointed out they work for all of us, so they should not be hesitant to explain their decisions to us.
As others said, the situation with Judge Vaddadi is exactly the same situation that arose with Judge McKenna.
The difference is the Stranger liked when it was done to McKenna, and does not like when it’s done to Vaddadi, presumably because they believe Vaddadi will rule as they would like in criminal cases, proving the City Attorney’s point.
The Department of Public Defense is not obligated to become the prosecutor’s office, nor is the City Attorney’s office obligated to do DPD’s job for them. They both elected to remove judges from their cases they believed problematic.
Fair to say “I don’t like this practice.” Hypocritical as all giddyup to say one is better than the other.
@13: “So when defense attorneys commonly disqualify a judge because the judge disregards plea agreements and imposes harsh sentences because he feels like it, that makes sense. The judge isn’t being impartial.”
I wasn’t aware only one side in an adversarial system got to decide, all by themselves, whether the judge was “impartial” or not.
If you’d take your own advice, and look at the cases Judge McKenna sentenced, you’d see he rejected new plea deals for defendants whose previous plea deals hadn’t changed those defendants’ behaviors. From the url @2:
“…McKenna’s move to reject a plea agreement for one frequent arrestee and instead impose the maximum 364-day sentence.”
I personally don’t like abusing powers to disqualify judges, no matter who does it. The difference here is both the judge and — although the Stranger won’t admit it — City Attorney are elected officials, so the voters can decide.
@13 you might want to go back and read her statements when she ran.
https://www.thestranger.com/elections-2022/2022/09/01/78417029/pooja-vaddadi-wants-to-heal-seattles-traumatic-court-system
She pretty much came out and said she wouldn’t be impartial and would openly be biased against the persecutors office.
“ In Vaddadi’s opinion, the judges at Seattle Municipal Court have a responsibility to push back on punitive policies that research shows do little to reduce crime.”
It sounds to me as if she is following through on that commitment. The continued focus on the criminal and not the person actually impacted by the crime is mind boggling.
@15 you seem to not understand how the system works. Both sides negotiate plea deals. McKenna was overriding the agreement of the parties and doing whatever he personally thought was best. That’s why both sides, prosecutors and defense, had a problem with him at the time.
@17 “The continued focus on the criminal and not the person actually impacted by the crime is mind boggling.”
In your own chosen quote she said she wanted to push back against policies that “research shows do little to reduce crime.” In other words she wants to emphasize policies that DO reduce crime. How did you possibly interpret that to mean she’s not focusing on the people impacted by crime? Speaking of not being impartial
@18: You seem not to understand how the system works. The judge has no obligation to accept a deal made between the prosecutors and defense. The very existence of a deal comes as an option from the judge. If he decides they dealt poorly, he can ignore it.
In the actual case quoted, Judge McKenna’s sentence would have reduced crime, by taking a repeat criminal off the streets for 364 days. The previous plea bargains had demonstrably not reduced such crime, so he didn’t repeat a method which had already failed.
Pooja is accused of releasing a person twice in one week for DUI. Twice–in one week.
Why does The Stranger support drunk drivers being released? They could kill someone.
Pooja is also accused of failing to issue written no-contact orders domestic violence cases.
Why does The Stranger support allowing men to harass, beat, or kill their wives or girlfriends?
Glad to see Ann Davison step up to protect women and for knowing the difference between right and wrong.
@20. That’s been posted in the media. But we haven’t been provided the case numbers so there is no way anyone can verify if this actually true, or if were other circumstances that warrant the judge’s decision.
Regarding removing the prosecutor from a case because the prosecutor made themselves a witness by talking to the victim about the facts of the case. We’ll see how the appeals court rules, but my guess is that the judge’s decision will be upheld (meaning the COA is in the wrong).
Ann Davison has no background in criminal law. She relied on her Criminal Division Chief Natalie Walton-Anderson to advise her on how to handle this situation. Walton-Anderson did advise her, but then abruptly quit, leaving Ann Davison to suffer the consequences of Criminal Division Chief Natalie Walton-Anderson’s decision to remove the judge. If COA is going to remove a judge, they better be able to present objective, verifiable, evidence, which they have failed to do.
@18 Holy shit… you seriously don’t know how the legal system works. This whole story is a nothing-burger.
And, hey, TS staff – love how you always refer to Davison as “republican” city attorney. Of course, you realize one of the major reasons the city of Seattle elected a Republican for this office was because of your – The Stranger’s – endorsement of the crazy NTK? Nah…. that would require too much self-assessment. And we know The Stranger don’t do that.
@19 “The judge has no obligation to accept a deal made between the prosecutors and defense.”
Yes but the vast majority do in the vast majority of cases, which explains why the one who habitually doesn’t would be the one attorneys most often remove from cases. And again, both the public defenders AND the prosecutors had a problem with McKenna at that time which speaks volumes.
Ann Davison is doing her job. This judge was not. Instead she was dumping dangerous individuals back on the street and was clearly showing her bias. Traffic court sounds like a better place for her.
@18 I’m speaking of the actual victim of said crime or as they court likes to refer to them nowadays “the persons affected by the assault”. We don’t want to hurt the feelings of the person actually doing the assaulting. The progressives love to continually cite “research” that shows restorative justice lowers crime but in every city it has been tried crime has gotten worse. It’s the theoretical vs the reality. Restorative justice may work but only if there are consequences for not following through with the alternative treatment and right now there isn’t so you just get a revolving door and this judge has become part of the problem not part of the solution.
@25 you’re talking out your ass. There’s extensive evidence of the effectiveness of restorative justice at reducing recidivism and, more importantly given it’s a victim-centric model, decreasing lasting psychological impact of the offense on victims.
But that’s all beside the point because CAO is not disqualifying this judge because she’s implementing restorative justice or anything like that. Your assertions are not just inaccurate they’re also irrelevant.
@23: “Yes but the vast majority do in the vast majority of cases,”
Irrelevant even if true, and your unsupported assertion proves nothing. The judge had the authority to do what he did, and the attorneys tired of hearing their best work didn’t meet his high standards. So they abused their powers to get back at him. Lots of maturity on display from them there.
“And again, both the public defenders AND the prosecutors had a problem with McKenna at that time which speaks volumes.”
Only about their enormously swollen senses of entitlement. “AND” they were working together to produce the work he rejected, so there’s no deeper significance than their own pique.
That same idea applies to the Stranger’s coverage of Davison. They opposed her election, they take her very existence in office as a personal insult they will never forgive, and therefore everything she does is wrong, even when they applauded similar actions taken by others in the past.
@27 a judge habitually overriding plea bargains to do whatever he feels is a legitimate reason to disqualify him from hearing future cases. A judge removing a prosecutor from a case because she made herself a witness in violation of the rules of professional conduct is not. If you can’t understand or bring yourself to agree with that simple premise, well, I guess you’re entitled to your opinion.
@28: “…judge habitually overriding plea bargains to do whatever he feels is a legitimate reason to disqualify him from hearing future cases.”
Only if you believe the judiciary should be subordinate to the executive branch, which is not actually how the American system of government works. I’ll repeat it for your edification: the plea deal exists only to the extent the judge so allows. Trial is always the first option. (The constitution is really clear: the defendant shall enjoy the right to a “speedy and public trial,” not “plea bargain.”)
“A judge removing a prosecutor from a case because she made herself a witness in violation of the rules of professional conduct is not.”
On the EXTREMELY generous assumption the Stranger has told us the compete and correct story, I agree the City Attorney’s Office is in the wrong here.
@29 one man is not “the judiciary.” If a whole court full of judges all regularly approve negotiated pleas, except one egotist who thinks he and he alone always knows best, I’d say disqualifying that judge from hearing pleas is exactly the type of situation for which the legislature enacted RCW 4.12.050