On February 2, 2024, the City Attorney’s Office (CAO) circulated a memo and subsequent press release which accused me of bias and gross incompetence. The CAO has taken the unprecedented step of not allowing any of their cases to be heard in my Court by issuing an Affidavit of Prejudice (AOP) every time a matter comes before me. They have further announced their plans to continue issuing affidavits through the rest of my term.
The blanket-affidavit policy is the most extreme version of such a policy that I’m aware of anywhere in Washington. Past AOP policies against specific judges have tended to be subject-matter-specific, impacting perhaps one calendar at a time (e.g. domestic violence or driving under the influence cases). Put another way, the CAO intends to effectively nullify a judge elected by the people of the City of Seattle through backdoor legal maneuverings, making sure that no defendant ever gets the chance to have a case heard in my courtroom. I speak only in my personal capacity as an elected Judge, and not on behalf of the Seattle Municipal Court.
This behavior has a significantly negative impact on the Court and our democratic process. If prosecutors can effectively nullify a sitting judge this way, we do not have real elections. To my knowledge, this is the first time in Washington history that a prosecutor has made it so a particular judge will never hear any criminal cases.
Falsities in the Memo
- The CAO’s accusations of bias and incompetence in the Memo completely lack merit.
Throughout my entire time of service to the City of Seattle, I upheld my deep commitment to be impartial and fair toward everyone who comes before my Court. I am committed to upholding the rule of law, the Constitution and the court rules. I hold both the defense and prosecution to the same exacting standards of professionalism and integrity.
My record speaks for itself. The CAO’s statements and memo claim to discuss actual cases and events, but these cases do not exist, and the events did not occur. Put more bluntly, the memo is simply false, and I will address every accusation in detail.
- The CAO stated that their concerns were raised with me multiple times. That assertion is false.
The CAO never communicated with me about any concerns about bias or competence, nor about the substance of the memo or press release, in any form or at any time except for once. In February, former CAO employee Natalie Walton-Anderson told me about the contents of the memo, after it had been written.
The CAO never raised any communication, complaint, or concerns about bias to me, to the Presiding Judge or, so far as I know after searching, to any staff of the Seattle Municipal Court prior to the 2/27 memo. In fact, to my knowledge, the CAO has not provided specific concerns or evidence that they had raised such concerns to anyone since that time.
The CAO has failed to provide any case records to authenticate any accusation of bias or error to me or to the Court at any time. Nor, to my knowledge, has any member of the press been able to obtain any such records, despite repeated requests.
The memo contains allegations of impropriety in specific cases – four in total. After exhaustive review, I cannot locate any evidence that these cases exist, and am confident that they don’t exist.
Direct Response to Accusations in the CAO Memo
“For the past several months, we have internally discussed the criminal division’s serious concerns with the conduct and rulings of Judge Pooja Vaddadi. Unfortunately, as outlined below, those concerns have only continued to mount in the past several months. As a result, I have made the difficult decision that the office will submit affidavits of prejudice for Judge Vaddadi on all criminal cases moving forward.”
I don’t think it’s likely that any internal discussion about my “conduct and rulings” that would lead to the blanket AOP policy occurred before February, because my practice and the outcomes from my court are not misaligned with those of my peers on the bench. In fact, it was my assumption that the CAO had come to trust my impartiality over the preceding several months, based on feedback from prosecutors who appeared before me. At any rate, such discussions by the City Criminal Division, if they exist, would have been discoverable by a public records request and none have been disclosed in response to such requests.
“All parties have the legal right to file an affidavit of prejudice to disqualify a judge on criminal cases if the party believes that it cannot receive a fair hearing or trial. Having a fair and impartial judge is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system. It has come to a point where Judge Vaddadi’s continued rulings prevent the city from receiving fair hearings and trials, and this action is therefore necessary to protect those rights and the rights of those affected by our inability to ensure fair and equitable hearings. The reasons for this decision, along with some examples, are set forth below.”
The assertions in the Memo would not support a claim of bias.
Court rules (CrRLJ 8.9 (b)) provide for disqualification of a judge if a party “files an affidavit alleging that the party cannot have a fair and impartial trial by reason of the interest or prejudice of the judge,” within limits set by the statute.
The use of the disqualification rule does not require that the party specify a reason why they ascribe bias to the judge when they file an AOP, and attorneys typically don’t. The memo and press release are even stranger because they make claims about errors of law, none of which are evidence of bias. The remedy for errors of law is not the AOP process, but the appellate process. The AOP process has never been intended for blanket nullification, but rather for specific concerns about bias on one subject or with a specific witness or defendant.
“First, Judge Vaddadi has routinely overruled prior findings of probable cause by her fellow judges, and repeatedly failed to find probable cause in situations where clearly probable cause exists. In one instance, she failed to find probable cause for the crime of assault when the suspect threatened a victim with a realistic (though ultimately fake) handgun, based on her belief that there was no alleged touching or contact between the parties. Her misunderstanding is in direct conflict with the legal definition of assault and long-standing case law and widely accepted jury instructions.”
This paragraph misconstrues legally significant terminology, (“overruling” rather than “reconsidering” a prior PC finding,) mischaracterizes the law on Assault, and describes a case that does not exist.
First, preliminary findings of probable cause are routinely challenged via a request for reconsideration. Both the defense and prosecution have the right to move for reconsideration, and both the defense and prosecution have used this opportunity in my Court. It is more common for the defense to avail themselves of this mechanism because probable cause is found in most cases and preliminary findings of probable cause can often occur without the defendant present. Unlike prosecutors, defense attorneys must often reserve their arguments until the defendant is present before the court.
Furthermore, I have seen several fake handgun cases, but none of them match the description in the memo. The result described does not match any case I recall or that I have been able to locate in my record, and it is improbable it would match any case record for the following reasons.
The description of the law on misdemeanor assault in the Memo was reductive and misleading, and the requirements to find probable cause for assault are more complex. I cannot reduce or paraphrase the law without risking inaccuracy. Misdemeanor assault in Washington at a minimum requires unwanted physical contact or a reasonable apprehension and fear of imminent bodily injury, and the threat must be perceived by the victim. The lack of an imminent threat of harm involving a fake weapon can arise when, hypothetically, the witness involved in a non-physical confrontation either did not observe the fake handgun or knows a fake weapon is fake and the City fails to assert the perception of imminent threat of bodily injury.
Therefore, a mere finding that a fake handgun was present in a case charged as assault would not alone be enough to find probable cause for assault. And whether a fake handgun is or is not at issue, a complete record must include all the relevant findings as to the elements of assault, namely: physical contact, imminent apprehension and fear of bodily injury, perception, etc. In other words, regardless of the presence or absence of a fake weapon in an assault case, an appropriate record should address each element of the crime, including whether there was, “alleged touching or contact between the parties,” as any first-year attorney should be aware.
At any rate, none of the accusations in this paragraph rise to a level of bias even if they were true, and the appropriate remedy for error is through appeal.
“Second, equally problematic are her rulings related to public safety in Domestic Violence and DUI cases. In many instances, Judge Vaddadi has refused to issue written No Contact Orders, even in situations with a demonstrated history of domestic violence. Another example involved her releasing an individual from jail, despite the fact that the individual had been arrested twice for DUI within a week and was in recent years convicted of DUI as well.”
This statement by the CAO is false. I issue most written no contact orders that a party requests. The only reasons I would not are where a no contact order would interfere with a pre-existing order that has been thoughtfully imposed by a higher court; or where it would not serve the interests of justice, for example, where a victim strenuously objects to the imposition of an order that would prevent them from seeing their children or maintaining their housing.
The DUI case “example” does not exist. It claims that a repeat-offender of DUI was released from jail immediately after committing two DUI’s. I cannot locate any cases matching that pattern. If any similar case exists, I suspect it would relate to any defendant who was last arrested for DUI up to two years ago, and whose case was delayed during that time, as prosecutors often hold off filing DUI cases until the statutory deadline.
Once again, none of the CAO’s accusations in this paragraph show bias even if they were true, and the appropriate remedy for error is through appeal.
“Third, Judge Vaddadi frequently makes erroneous evidentiary rulings for unjustified reasons, rather than articulating any legal analysis. She routinely raises arguments on behalf of defendants without prompting or argument from their own attorneys. The resounding input from attorneys that have appeared in her courtroom believe that her decisions demonstrate a complete lack of understanding, or perhaps even intentional disregard, of the evidence rules, even on basic issues.”
The City never appealed any of my rulings prior to issuing the Memo. Please appreciate the irony that, in one paragraph, Ms. Walton-Anderson criticizes a legal analysis, and in the next claims that I do not articulate any legal analysis. Nonetheless, I’m not aware of having made erroneous evidentiary rulings at all during my tenure, and by definition an erroneous evidentiary ruling would be unjustified. However, error does not constitute bias. The City has access to the appellate procedure to contest error in evidentiary rulings, and it has now only done so once, without success.
No attorney or leader at the CAO has ever contacted me directly or through my Presiding to discuss specific evidentiary errors or any pattern of errors prior to issuing the Memo. Nor have I received any negative feedback on this issue – or any other – from any practitioners who appear in my courtroom. To the contrary, feedback that I have received directly from attorneys, including prosecuting attorneys, has been uniformly positive.
Seattle Municipal Court is a teaching court. In other words, attorneys who are in their first few years of practice frequently appear in my court. It would be a disservice to both the City and the Defense if I did not improve their practice by pointing out obvious errors. Finally, as a Judge, the burden of public safety and constitutional safeguards falls on me. It would be a significant deviation from my ethical obligations if I were to violate a defendant’s fundamental constitutional rights or if I released a dangerous individual from jail simply because a first-year attorney failed to make an argument.
“Lastly, Judge Vaddadi does not show appropriate deference to court orders, and often in circumstances where the goal is to monitor DUI and DV offenders to ensure they participate in treatment. In one recent case, Judge Vaddadi ruled that a defendant was in substantial compliance with treatment and dismissed the case, even though it was clear that the defendant never got on the transport van to ABHS to fulfill his residential treatment requirement that was part of dispositional continuance. Not requiring offenders to follow through with their treatment obligations does not mitigate the likelihood of future criminal behavior or protect the public.”
Of all the examples in the Memo, this is the most problematic.
First, the City has used the AOP process throughout my tenure to block me from taking DV matters in which the prosecution and defense had a dispute about compliance. No such cases have come through my courtroom. I have presided only over dispositional continuance or compliance matters in which the defense and prosecution have already negotiated the issue of compliance.
Second, this example of a “recent case” is fiction. I am deeply disturbed by the recklessness of Ms. Walton-Anderson and the CAO in publishing such specific and detailed claims about a case that I am certain did not occur. I assert with confidence that I have never and would never find someone in “substantial compliance” when they’ve willfully failed to get on the bus to court ordered treatment. The CAO has failed to provide any evidence of this case simply because it does not exist.
“I have immense respect for the members of the Seattle Municipal Court bench, and as prosecutors we should all show great restraint when expressing concerns about the decisions made by our elected judges. However, judges also have a responsibility to set aside their personal feelings and follow the law, and their rulings must demonstrate equal fairness to both individuals charged with a crime and those, our victims and survivors, who are affected by it.
Earlier this afternoon, I informed Judge Vaddadi and the Presiding Judge of this decision, and I want each of you to understand the reasons for taking this unusual action. I will provide you with more information about how the court will address this matter, and what actions we will need to take on our individual cases, tomorrow. Please contact me or your supervisors if you have any questions.”
The Memo was crafted a few weeks after a February 2024 ruling in which I disqualified an individual prosecuting attorney from trial to avert a potential ethics and evidentiary issue – the only occasion on which I have taken that step. Almost immediately after circulating the Memo and announcing the AOP policy, the City filed a writ appealing the disqualification ruling. The appeal was not successful, and the Superior Court upheld my decision to disqualify. This is the only appeal that the City has ever filed against any of my rulings. At this time, I believe that the sole source of discontent from the CAO is that I enforced an ethical and evidentiary rule against one of its attorneys.
If the CAO had legitimate concerns about me as a judge, there are several steps it could have taken. The CAO could have communicated concerns with me or to our Presiding Judge, but it did not. The CAO could have appealed any of the rulings that it believed were wrong or reflected bias, but it did not. The CAO could have engaged with the Commission on Judicial Conduct, but as far as I know, it did not.
Instead, the CAO circulated a scathing memorandum, riddled with misrepresentations or outright fabrications, embarked on an Affidavit of Prejudice campaign of unprecedented scope and severity, and then issued a press release calculated to damage my reputation. I do not believe this behavior reflects respect for this Court; for the judges, magistrates and staff who are burdened and inconvenienced; for the City of Seattle that must now fund pro-tem coverage; or for the victims who may be impacted when court calendars are needlessly overburdened, and cases dismissed for speedy trial violations.
I remain now, as when I campaigned, committed to fairness and impartiality. My record reflects nothing less. No amount of inconvenience or venom directed at me will interfere with my commitment to judicial independence and to enforcing the highest standards of ethical behavior in my courtroom. I ask the CAO to retract this memo, to critically examine how the memo came to be published, and to consider whether the policy furthers justice in Seattle.
IANAL but it sounds like the CAO committed defamation.
“At this time,
I believe that the
sole source of discontent
from the CAO is that I enforced an
ethical and evidentiary rule against one of its attorneys.”
well
there
ya Go:
they’re
little gods
and Must be
Treated as such:
if eltrumpfster
can do it so too
can the city by the Sea.
our
fascists
will brook
No exceptions
for Justice anywhere
anytime nor anyplace.
it sounds like
@1 scored
a Bingo
to me
and the CAO’d
better come up
with a damn good
Explanation. & good
on You, Judge: don’t give the
fascists an inch or they’ll Take a gd Mile.
I am a lawyer, and I am eager to see the CAO’s response to this. I am pretty defense oriented, yet I think to basically boycott a judge from hearing criminal cases requires something more than I’ve read so far.
Gee, Ann Davison is a butthurt fascist. What a shock. Her term cannot end soon enough. I wonder if she’ll refuse to leave once she loses?
Putting aside for the moment the substance of the reply, I find 2 things about this piece troubling:
The ethics of a sitting judge writing this.
That sitting judge choosing an advocacy publication that has become little more than a rant-filled opinion blog for articulating the most extremist public policy positions and endorsing the most extreme candidates available as the forum for publishing that ill-advised piece. (a publication which endorsed her, to make the journalistic conflict of interest issue worse)
Expanding on @5, this headline post contains no link to either or both of “a memo and subsequent press release,” even though the latter, at least, is clearly a public document. Also, the accusations, “but these cases do not exist, and the events did not occur,” and “the memo is simply false,” would seem very serious. Has anyone at the Stranger attempted any independent verification of any of this?
Cool story bro.
If you’re a judge and you have to take your case to the opinion section of The Stranger, you’re not in a very strong position.
@6 CAO would be in the best position to substantiate their claims. Seeing they have to date inexplicably failed to do so, it seems plausible they are false. Now the judge has publicly stated, after review, that they are in fact false CAO needs to bring receipts or be be proven embarrassingly bullshit and borderline unethical.
@8: That was a lot of words for you to answer my question, especially when a simple “no,” would have sufficed.
“CAO would be in the best position to substantiate their claims.”
There are currently no claims from CAO in this post. As of right now, there are only the author’s claims the quoted material is from CAO, correct, complete, and faithful to context. Why were no links posted? Especially to what are supposedly public documents?
“…CAO needs to bring receipts…”
Are you seriously claiming the burden of proof rests upon the accused?
@9 Good god you’re dumb. Do a little research maybe.
@9 let me help you out:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/seattle-city-attorneys-office-bars-judge-from-hearing-criminal-cases/
Now, “Are you seriously claiming the burden of proof rests upon the accused?”
Defamation of a public official is a very high bar. Just today there was a Seattle times article noting that the case against Sawant for referring to police officers as murderers was thrown out of court. You not only have to prove the statement is untrue, you have to prove it was said out of malice. Good luck with that. I also wonder, if this was so egregious, why it took her six months to write this response?
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/officer-defamation-suit-against-ex-seattle-councilmember-sawant-dismissed/
@12 Ha! So the right wing argument is: “How dare she write this! And why did it take so long?”
(AKA… “The food is terrible. And such small portions!”)
@13 not sure what you are talking about. I’m not arguing anything just noting for those who think she is being defamed and should pursue legal action that she prob doesn’t have a case.
@12 “You not only have to prove the statement is untrue, you have to prove it was said out of malice.”
Like, say, to harm the career trajectory of an elected judge you don’t like?
“I also wonder, if this was so egregious, why it took her six months to write this response?”
Presumably because, unlike CAO, she underwent a comprehensive record review to make sure she was accurately relaying the facts.
@15 if you say so but it sure feels like you all are reaching a bit.
To all the cope-artists whining about “no links,” and why is this written “six months” later, and why can’t the judge get published in the Seattle Times: why don’t you get Ann Davison to provide the receipts?
@17: Because it’s not the CAO’s job to respond to every Guest Rant hit piece in the Stranger?
It’s funny to read rightwingers “whine”* about Judge Vaddadi airing her complaint in the press. Davidson and the CAO are undermining Vaddadi’s ability to do the job she was elected for by the public, so it seems natural and indeed necessary that Vaddadi keeps the public informed.
As for the fact that right wingers, and their sock puppets, don’t like The Stranger, we already know since they “whine” about it every day
@18 The CAO has failed to respond to “repeated requests.” Why die on the hill of defending an authoritarian who uses fabrications to deal with perceived enemies? No need to answer. Here’s the quote:
“The CAO has failed to provide any case records to authenticate any accusation of bias or error to me or to the Court at any time. Nor, to my knowledge, has any member of the press been able to obtain any such records, despite repeated requests.”
“Why
die on
the hill of
defending an
authoritarian who
uses fabrications to
deal with perceived enemies?”
when
the Lies
are Bottomless
the repercussions
nonexistent the Far
reichwing’s fabrications
will live on in infamy tho
Civilization as we know it
likely will Not. it’s Not Their
Concern: the reptilican brainstem
at
its
finest.
@19 lol at progressives claiming the CA is undermining the justice system when they have spent the last 10 years doing just that. This paper endorsed someone who said they had no intentions of doing the job. At least we finally got to the truth, it’s the “authoritarian” atty that is the issue. The jokes write themselves.
@11: That Times story is just the flip side of this Guest Rant. It selectively quotes from the CAO’s Memo, without reproducing it, or linking to it. In both that story and this Guest Rant, there’s no way for a reader to make an independent decision. Therefore, a reader has no reason to believe anyone’s claims.
I’m guessing this will all get sorted out by Seattle’s voters, eventually.
@22 “authoritarian”
It seems like an adequate qualifier for someone who invokes a reason to deny the will of voters yet repeatedly refuses to provide the supporting evidence
As for your extraordinary claim regarding who is undermining the justice system, it needs supporting evidence as well.
@23 ya maybe it’s a vast media conspiracy to falsely attribute memos to Davison and her cronies. Or maybe not:
https://news.seattle.gov/2024/03/08/seattle-city-attorneys-office-issues-standing-affidavit-of-prejudice-on-seattle-municipal-court-judge/
@24: Seattle’s City Attorney is also elected by Seattle’s voters, so your expressed concern for the “will of the voters” seems extremely selective, at best. (Hence my comment — you know, the one immediately preceding yours? — about how Seattle’s voters will sort it out eventually.) There’s plenty of other work for Judge Vaddadi to do, so Seattle’s voters will still get their money’s worth from her.
@25: That’s presumably the press release Judge Vaddadi complained about in the body of this post, although she never identified it. We remain where we started: the City Attorney’s office made these claims, and Judge Vaddadi claims the City Attorney’s Office is wrong. That’s it.
It really doesn’t matter, because the City Attorney, like any other entity filing an affidavit of prejudice, need not provide any reason for so doing.
@26 More ad-hock reasoning from you. Being elected doesn’t give the right to use city institutions to deny voter will without very valid reasons. Donald Trump too believes being elected makes him unaccountable. What happens between elections also concerns us so that we don’t end up with messes like the current one.
@26 glad you finally managed to unconfuse yourself and realize the situation is that CAO made allegations, the target has refuted them, and CAO now needs to substantiate their claims if they hope to preserve their credibility. Like I wrote way back at 8. Please try to keep up next time.
“Inconvenience, venom, completely lack merit, false (+1), misconstrues, mischaracterizes, reductive, misleading, most problematic, recklessness, scathing memorandum, riddled with misrepresentations or outright fabrications
Honorable Judge Pooja Vaddadi
For argument’s sake, let’s say the AOP filed by the CA did, in fact, lack basis. Having now published this piece, to quote Judge Vaddadi’s own reference to it:
“Court rules (CrRLJ 8.9 (b)) provide for disqualification of a judge if a party “files an affidavit alleging that the party cannot have a fair and impartial trial by reason of the interest or prejudice of the judge,” within limits set by the statute.”
This “rant” is now, taking into account the choice words highlighted at the outset from the Judge’s piece, evidence of judicial prejudice against the CA in violation of..wait for it…CrRLJ 8.9 (b).
The CAO has “….the unprecedented step …by issuing an Affidavit of Prejudice (AOP)”
Ehh, maybe more accurate to say “slightly precedented here” – except it was done by defense attorneys to an also elected judge “in defiance of the will of the voters”
https://www.cascadepbs.org/2019/05/controversial-seattle-judge-sees-flurry-cases-pulled-public-defenders
If prosecutors can effectively nullify a sitting judge this way, we do not have real elections.
What if defense counsel do it? (see, https://www.cascadepbs.org/2019/05/controversial-seattle-judge-sees-flurry-cases-pulled-public-defenders)
“The use of the disqualification rule does not require that the party specify a reason why they ascribe bias to the judge when they file an AOP, and attorneys typically don’t.” -Judge Vaddadi
13, 20, 27, 28: game, set, and match to Tensorna on this one.
“Seattle Municipal Court is a teaching court.”-Judge Vaddadi
I like this and think it should be, but an individual judge so stating doesn’t make it so. Is this actually a thing?
“The CAO could have engaged with the Commission on Judicial Conduct, but as far as I know, it did not.” – Judge Vaddadi
Having now published this, Judge, I imagine they might take you up on that.
“…campaign of unprecedented scope and severity”- Judge Vaddadi
Again, maybe just a wee bit precedented. (see, https://www.cascadepbs.org/2019/05/controversial-seattle-judge-sees-flurry-cases-pulled-public-defenders)
“I remain now, as when I campaigned, committed to fairness and impartiality. My record reflects nothing less… I ask the CAO to retract this memo
Umm. Fairness and impartiality? (see, https://www.thestranger.com/guest-editorial/2024/08/30/79670096/statement-from-the-honorable-judge-pooja-vaddadi-in-response-to-city-attorney-memo)
@29 “blah blah blah”
The reality of this situation is CAO unilaterally disqualified, on every criminal case, a judge because of unsubstantiated claims of inappropriate conduct. And despite ample opportunity they have utterly failed to substantiate their claimed grievances. CAO took a shot and missed, and you and other clown commenters are desperately flailing in an attempt to salvage their credibility. Davison is an amateur hack and no amount of bizarro whataboutism can conceal that fact.
30 thats really the best you’ve got?
Judge Vaddadi makes the point in her own piece. AOPs aren’t handled the way you describe.
CAO clearly didn’t miss. She’s not hearing their cases as a result of the AOP.
That you seem so outraged suggests there are outcomes in those cases you’re not getting that you thought you’d get with Judge Vaddadi, which weakens, not strengthens, your argument.
If you were as upset about the AOPs leveled against Judge McKenna, your point would be stronger…but, unsurprisingly, you’re not.
@31: “If you were as upset about the AOPs leveled against Judge McKenna, your point would be stronger…but, unsurprisingly, you’re not.”
Watching the Stranger, and supportive commenters, denounce as “unprecedented” the very practice they recently praised, really makes for quite the show of bald political hypocrisy, doesn’t it?
‘There is a coup going on in Seattle’s Municipal Courts: Public defenders are filing affidavits of prejudice against Judge Ed McKenna at a rate 10 times higher than his colleagues in an attempt not only to get a different judge but to highlight how public defenders have lost confidence in Judge McKenna. According to Crosscut, McKenna was previously asked by City Attorney Pete Holmes and Anita Khandelwal, the director of the Department of Public Defense, to step down on accusations of prejudice, but McKenna refused. Now McKenna is being removed from the equation by a united front of public defenders that simply switch judges if he’s assigned to their case. One official called it essentially “a vote of no confidence” in McKenna’s ability to serve.’
(https://www.thestranger.com/news/2024/03/01/79409369/republican-city-attorney-ann-davison-throws-municipal-court-into-chaos/comments/29)
Amazing how the public defenders could try to reverse the results of a judicial election without invoking the wrath of either the Stranger or supportive commenters, isn’t it?
Sounds like the judge ruled against the City Attorney’s Office a few times, the subordinates reported back (with incomplete or misleading accounts) and the elected made the decision to disqualify on all criminal cases, as is one of the City’s available options.
It is an option, but one not employed often. The long-time King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng refused to let his deputies use it, because of democratic and public relations considerations.
Seattle Muni is a teaching court. Many attorneys who practice there are recent law school graduates. Also the court bears significant responsibility to protect a defendant’s constitutional rights even absent a specific motion or objection from the defense.
There is also the bureaucratic hassle involved. By filing what used to be called ‘blanket affidavits
continued, sorry.
By filing what used to be called ‘blanket affidavits,’ you essentially have one branch of government dictating to another how to run its operation. This is far different than individual defense attorneys doing so on individual cases, since they have clients who may have their own specific issues and considerations.
In short, knocking out a judge in the very public manner is not a step to be taken lightly. And the City Attorney showed she understood this by composing a memo with specific examples. Unfortunately for her, it appears that she relied on her own deputies’ accounts instead of pulling the actual court records (all court proceedings are reported verbatim by a court reporter or audio recorded and preserved). So they appear to be unsubstantiated claims, and thus reflect quite poorly on the CA’s reputation.
For young attorneys, and any attorneys, it is very tempting after losing in court to head back to the shop and complain about the judge. A good leader would urge them to learn from their mistakes, make a better record, make a better argument, or even pick battles more carefully.
Instead, this move by the CAO just comes across as sour grapes.
@29 Well, you certainly twisted yourself into a pretzel to come up with the rather farcical ‘claiming lack of evidence of prejudice and deceit is all the evidence of prejudice we need’ type argument.
As for the rest you are basically repeating the claim that the same scenario happened with judge MCKenna to justify what City Attorney Davison is doing to judge Vaddadi , which has been shown to not be the case yet you do not account for these major differences: a) no blanket AOP issued from the top for McKenna. There are few questions asked for filing an individual AOP but a top down, blanket decision to sideline the judge in all but minor cases does need justification, b) nobody contested the major facts in McKenna case after the story became public, we have yet to see what they are for judge Vaddadi c) a build up over 3 years and 100’s of cases for McKenna, and d) both prosecution and defense agreed that Judge McKenna was prejudiced and both filed individual AOP
LOL – this is becoming comical.
Judges are not similarly positioned with either defense counsel or prosecutors. The conduct rules applicable to judges are different (and significantly higher). So, let’s see how to the Commission on Judicial Conduct would view an opinion piece titled a “rant” (by the Stranger) in an advocacy publication. I expect you aren’t going to like their perspective.
“blanket decision to sideline the judge in all but minor cases does need justification”
Except you’re wrong about that. It doesn’t and, in any event, the CAO wrote a justification narrative. You just disagree with it–which is your right entirely, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen nor, in fact, was it actually “need[ed]” as you assert.
Again, you (along with a few others) seem awfully worked up about rulings you’re not getting in cases a judge isn’t hearing. This really does feel like you expected a parade of rulings on CJ matters from the judge you’re now not getting.
To pivot a moment to #30’s assertion that the CA is “an amateur hack”, then it must be particularly galling to have been outplayed by “an amateur hack” with regard to criminal cases coming before the municipal court. She could entirely lose her office in 2025. That said, the outcomes of the local elections in both 2021 and 2023 suggest that she’s not the outlier in this equation.
@31 both the prosecutors and defenders agreed McKenna was out of line, and they jointly explained why with concrete examples. That situation was not the same. And while you’re right that CAO didn’t need to give a reason to AOP, they nonetheless chose to purport to, but they haven’t been able to back up their accusations at all. Using the AOP, even in what is in fact an unprecedented manner, isn’t what was amateurish it was trying to smear a judge publicly and getting caught with their pants down.
@37: Either intentionally filing AoPs as a matter of practice against a judge is inherently abusive, or it is not. Your prior explicit approval of this use of AoPs now jams you into “explaining” why the exact same practice is bad if used against a judge you like. (Given how crushingly voters ended the previous City Attorney’s tenure, reliance on his opinion against another elected official just shows how desperate you really are.)
@38 “Either intentionally filing AoPs as a matter of practice against a judge is inherently abusive, or it is not” is an obvious oversimplification, everything depends on context. In the McKenna case both sides of the adversarial system agreed a judge was misusing his authority, they had concrete examples, and they tried speaking to the judge directly before AOP’ing, which was not done across the board on orders from above but left to the case-specific best judgement of the individual attorney. Pretending these situations are the same is no better an argument than your earlier speculation that maybe the CAO memo didn’t actually exist.
@39 et all
a wormtongue’s
gotta Worm.
@39: You forgot to mention the part where Holmes and the head of the public defenders’ office had both asked McKenna to resign, and when he did not, they started filing AoPs. They were blatantly trying to nullify the results of an election. If that’s not a flagrant abuse of AoPs, then what is?
@41 ” both [prosecuting and defender’s office] asked McKenna to resign, and when he did not, they started filing AoPs”
You are lying again. The letter asking that he step down was sent on April 28, 2019 yet a great numbers of AOP where filed as early as 2017:
“With 200 dismissals in 2017 and 2018, he far outpaced his colleagues.” and he was booted from ~100 cases in 2019 before the letter was sent (another ~100 cases subsequently)
and
“Supervisors with DPD said repeatedly that there is no top-down order to file an affidavit against McKenna, but that the increased numbers are the result of individual decisions based on what’s best for clients.
and
“It’s to the level where the attorneys that I supervise, it’s essentially unanimous that the best thing that they can do for their clients is to affidavit [McKenna] because they have no confidence they can get a fair hearing or trial from him,” said Matt Covello, a supervisor in DPD.”
https://www.cascadepbs.org/2019/05/controversial-seattle-judge-sees-flurry-cases-pulled-public-defenders
It is important to understand the event that precipitated this imbroglio: A witness (in a case that is so stupid I can’t bare to repeat the facts) told a city prosecutor a story that differed from the story told to investigators. This judge brilliantly thought that since the prosecutor may now herself have to be a witness to conflicting accounts, the prosecutor could not longer be on the case. Just stop and think about how in-the-pocket for defendants you must be as a judge to knee-cap the prosecutor because a witness told an inconsistent story. Sorting BS from truth is the whole point. The CAO has come to believe that this judge is biased in favor of criminals, and they may be right. Where the CAO fell short is properly documenting that perception and making an effective case against the judge.
@43 CAO appealed her decision to Superior Court and the decision was upheld. Every attorney (except apparently that one) knows not to make themself a witness so they always have a third person present for an interview. That prosecutor made a rookie mistake and the whole office embarrassingly doubled down instead of just taking the L and making it a teaching moment.
The CAO claimed to have a specific case in mind when referring to the “fake handgun” case, and similarly for the DUI case.
If that is the case then there is no legitimate reason why the CAO can’t just say specially what those cases are.
@42: Thank you for pointing out that I got my facts out of order. However it happened, the blanket filing of AoPs became part of an attempt to drive Judge McKenna from office, in violation of the will of the voters. In your mind, that’s somehow better than just removing a judge from cases, which is what both the public defenders’ office (McKenna) and the City Attorney’s Office (Vadaddi) have done. The main difference is the City Attorney’s Office has been up-front about what they’re doing and why. We can agree or disagree with their decision, and with their stated reason(s) for it, but at least they told us outright, instead of doing it unannounced.