On February 2, 2024, the Metropolis Lawyer’s Workplace (CAO) circulated a memo and subsequent press launch which accused me of bias and gross incompetence. The CAO has taken the unprecedented step of not permitting any of their circumstances to be heard in my Court docket by issuing an Affidavit of Prejudice (AOP) each time a matter comes earlier than me. They’ve additional introduced their plans to proceed issuing affidavits by means of the remainder of my time period.
The blanket-affidavit coverage is probably the most excessive model of such a coverage that I’m conscious of wherever in Washington. Previous AOP insurance policies towards particular judges have tended to be subject-matter-specific, impacting maybe one calendar at a time (e.g. home violence or driving beneath the affect circumstances). Put one other manner, the CAO intends to successfully nullify a decide elected by the individuals of the Metropolis of Seattle by means of backdoor authorized maneuverings, ensuring that no defendant ever will get the possibility to have a case heard in my courtroom. I converse solely in my private capability as an elected Choose, and never on behalf of the Seattle Municipal Court docket.
This conduct has a considerably unfavourable impression on the Court docket and our democratic course of. If prosecutors can successfully nullify a sitting decide this manner, we should not have actual elections. To my data, that is the primary time in Washington historical past {that a} prosecutor has made it so a specific decide won’t ever hear any prison circumstances.
Falsities within the Memo
- The CAO’s accusations of bias and incompetence within the Memo utterly lack benefit.
All through my whole time of service to the Metropolis of Seattle, I upheld my deep dedication to be neutral and truthful towards everybody who comes earlier than my Court docket. I’m dedicated to upholding the rule of legislation, the Structure and the court docket guidelines. I maintain each the protection and prosecution to the identical exacting requirements of professionalism and integrity.
My file speaks for itself. The CAO’s statements and memo declare to debate precise circumstances and occasions, however these circumstances don’t exist, and the occasions didn’t happen. Put extra bluntly, the memo is just false, and I’ll tackle each accusation intimately.
- The CAO acknowledged that their considerations had been raised with me a number of instances. That assertion is fake.
The CAO by no means communicated with me about any considerations about bias or competence, nor in regards to the substance of the memo or press launch, in any type or at any time aside from as soon as. In February, former CAO worker Natalie Walton-Anderson instructed me in regards to the contents of the memo, after it had been written.
The CAO by no means raised any communication, grievance, or considerations about bias to me, to the Presiding Choose or, as far as I do know after looking out, to any employees of the Seattle Municipal Court docket previous to the two/27 memo. In truth, to my data, the CAO has not offered particular considerations or proof that they’d raised such considerations to anybody since that point.
The CAO has failed to supply any case information to authenticate any accusation of bias or error to me or to the Court docket at any time. Nor, to my data, has any member of the press been capable of receive any such information, regardless of repeated requests.
The memo incorporates allegations of impropriety in particular circumstances – 4 in whole. After exhaustive evaluate, I can’t find any proof that these circumstances exist, and am assured that they don’t exist.
Direct Response to Accusations within the CAO Memo
“For the previous a number of months, we have now internally mentioned the prison division’s critical considerations with the conduct and rulings of Choose Pooja Vaddadi. Sadly, as outlined under, these considerations have solely continued to mount previously a number of months. Because of this, I’ve made the troublesome choice that the workplace will submit affidavits of prejudice for Choose Vaddadi on all prison circumstances transferring ahead.”
I don’t assume it’s possible that any inner dialogue about my “conduct and rulings” that may result in the blanket AOP coverage occurred earlier than February, as a result of my observe and the outcomes from my court docket will not be misaligned with these of my friends on the bench. In truth, it was my assumption that the CAO had come to belief my impartiality over the previous a number of months, based mostly on suggestions from prosecutors who appeared earlier than me. At any fee, such discussions by the Metropolis Felony Division, in the event that they exist, would have been discoverable by a public information request and none have been disclosed in response to such requests.
“All events have the authorized proper to file an affidavit of prejudice to disqualify a decide on prison circumstances if the social gathering believes that it can’t obtain a good listening to or trial. Having a good and neutral decide is likely one of the cornerstones of our judicial system. It has come to a degree the place Choose Vaddadi’s continued rulings stop the town from receiving truthful hearings and trials, and this motion is subsequently needed to guard these rights and the rights of these affected by our lack of ability to make sure truthful and equitable hearings. The explanations for this choice, together with some examples, are set forth under.”
The assertions within the Memo wouldn’t assist a declare of bias.
Court docket guidelines (CrRLJ 8.9 (b)) present for disqualification of a decide if a celebration “information an affidavit alleging that the social gathering can’t have a good and neutral trial by motive of the curiosity or prejudice of the decide,” inside limits set by the statute.
The usage of the disqualification rule doesn’t require that the social gathering specify a motive why they ascribe bias to the decide once they file an AOP, and attorneys sometimes don’t. The memo and press launch are even stranger as a result of they make claims about errors of legislation, none of that are proof of bias. The treatment for errors of legislation will not be the AOP course of, however the appellate course of. The AOP course of has by no means been meant for blanket nullification, however fairly for particular considerations about bias on one topic or with a selected witness or defendant.
“First, Choose Vaddadi has routinely overruled prior findings of possible trigger by her fellow judges, and repeatedly failed to search out possible trigger in conditions the place clearly possible trigger exists. In a single occasion, she failed to search out possible trigger for the crime of assault when the suspect threatened a sufferer with a sensible (although finally pretend) handgun, based mostly on her perception that there was no alleged touching or contact between the events. Her misunderstanding is in direct battle with the authorized definition of assault and long-standing case legislation and broadly accepted jury directions.”
This paragraph misconstrues legally important terminology, (“overruling” fairly than “reconsidering” a previous PC discovering,) mischaracterizes the legislation on Assault, and describes a case that doesn’t exist.
First, preliminary findings of possible trigger are routinely challenged through a request for reconsideration. Each the protection and prosecution have the best to maneuver for reconsideration, and each the protection and prosecution have used this chance in my Court docket. It’s extra frequent for the protection to avail themselves of this mechanism as a result of possible trigger is discovered normally and preliminary findings of possible trigger can typically happen with out the defendant current. Not like prosecutors, protection attorneys should typically reserve their arguments till the defendant is current earlier than the court docket.
Moreover, I’ve seen a number of pretend handgun circumstances, however none of them match the outline within the memo. The end result described doesn’t match any case I recall or that I’ve been capable of find in my file, and it’s inconceivable it will match any case file for the next causes.
The outline of the legislation on misdemeanor assault within the Memo was reductive and deceptive, and the necessities to search out possible trigger for assault are extra advanced. I can’t scale back or paraphrase the legislation with out risking inaccuracy. Misdemeanor assault in Washington at a minimal requires undesirable bodily contact or an inexpensive apprehension and worry of imminent bodily harm, and the menace have to be perceived by the sufferer. The dearth of an imminent menace of hurt involving a pretend weapon can come up when, hypothetically, the witness concerned in a non-physical confrontation both didn’t observe the pretend handgun or is aware of a pretend weapon is pretend and the Metropolis fails to say the notion of imminent menace of bodily harm.
Subsequently, a mere discovering {that a} pretend handgun was current in a case charged as assault wouldn’t alone be sufficient to search out possible trigger for assault. And whether or not a pretend handgun is or will not be at challenge, a whole file should embody all of the related findings as to the weather of assault, specifically: bodily contact, imminent apprehension and worry of bodily harm, notion, and so on. In different phrases, whatever the presence or absence of a pretend weapon in an assault case, an acceptable file ought to tackle every factor of the crime, together with whether or not there was, “alleged touching or contact between the events,” as any first-year legal professional needs to be conscious.
At any fee, not one of the accusations on this paragraph rise to a degree of bias even when they had been true, and the suitable treatment for error is thru enchantment.
“Second, equally problematic are her rulings associated to public security in Home Violence and DUI circumstances. In lots of situations, Choose Vaddadi has refused to challenge written No Contact Orders, even in conditions with a demonstrated historical past of home violence. One other instance concerned her releasing a person from jail, although the person had been arrested twice for DUI inside every week and was in recent times convicted of DUI as properly.”
This assertion by the CAO is fake. I challenge most written no contact orders {that a} social gathering requests. The one causes I’d not are the place a no contact order would intrude with a pre-existing order that has been thoughtfully imposed by the next court docket; or the place it will not serve the pursuits of justice, for instance, the place a sufferer strenuously objects to the imposition of an order that may stop them from seeing their kids or sustaining their housing.
The DUI case “instance” doesn’t exist. It claims {that a} repeat-offender of DUI was launched from jail instantly after committing two DUI’s. I can’t find any circumstances matching that sample. If any related case exists, I think it will relate to any defendant who was final arrested for DUI as much as two years in the past, and whose case was delayed throughout that point, as prosecutors typically maintain off submitting DUI circumstances till the statutory deadline.
As soon as once more, not one of the CAO’s accusations on this paragraph present bias even when they had been true, and the suitable treatment for error is thru enchantment.
“Third, Choose Vaddadi incessantly makes misguided evidentiary rulings for unjustified causes, fairly than articulating any authorized evaluation. She routinely raises arguments on behalf of defendants with out prompting or argument from their very own attorneys. The resounding enter from attorneys which have appeared in her courtroom consider that her choices exhibit a whole lack of know-how, or maybe even intentional disregard, of the proof guidelines, even on primary points.”
The Metropolis by no means appealed any of my rulings previous to issuing the Memo. Please respect the irony that, in a single paragraph, Ms. Walton-Anderson criticizes a authorized evaluation, and within the subsequent claims that I don’t articulate any authorized evaluation. Nonetheless, I’m not conscious of getting made misguided evidentiary rulings in any respect throughout my tenure, and by definition an misguided evidentiary ruling can be unjustified. Nonetheless, error doesn’t represent bias. The Metropolis has entry to the appellate process to contest error in evidentiary rulings, and it has now solely performed so as soon as, with out success.
No legal professional or chief on the CAO has ever contacted me immediately or by means of my Presiding to debate particular evidentiary errors or any sample of errors previous to issuing the Memo. Nor have I acquired any unfavourable suggestions on this challenge – or every other – from any practitioners who seem in my courtroom. On the contrary, suggestions that I’ve acquired immediately from attorneys, together with prosecuting attorneys, has been uniformly constructive.
Seattle Municipal Court docket is a educating court docket. In different phrases, attorneys who’re of their first few years of observe incessantly seem in my court docket. It could be a disservice to each the Metropolis and the Protection if I didn’t enhance their observe by declaring apparent errors. Lastly, as a Choose, the burden of public security and constitutional safeguards falls on me. It could be a big deviation from my moral obligations if I had been to violate a defendant’s elementary constitutional rights or if I launched a harmful particular person from jail just because a first-year legal professional did not make an argument.
“Lastly, Choose Vaddadi doesn’t present acceptable deference to court docket orders, and infrequently in circumstances the place the objective is to observe DUI and DV offenders to make sure they take part in remedy. In a single current case, Choose Vaddadi dominated {that a} defendant was in substantial compliance with remedy and dismissed the case, despite the fact that it was clear that the defendant by no means acquired on the transport van to ABHS to meet his residential remedy requirement that was a part of dispositional continuance. Not requiring offenders to comply with by means of with their remedy obligations doesn’t mitigate the chance of future prison conduct or defend the general public.”
Of all of the examples within the Memo, that is probably the most problematic.
First, the Metropolis has used the AOP course of all through my tenure to dam me from taking DV issues through which the prosecution and protection had a dispute about compliance. No such circumstances have come by means of my courtroom. I’ve presided solely over dispositional continuance or compliance issues through which the protection and prosecution have already negotiated the difficulty of compliance.
Second, this instance of a “current case” is fiction. I’m deeply disturbed by the recklessness of Ms. Walton-Anderson and the CAO in publishing such particular and detailed claims a few case that I’m sure didn’t happen. I assert with confidence that I’ve by no means and would by no means discover somebody in “substantial compliance” once they’ve willfully did not get on the bus to court docket ordered remedy. The CAO has failed to supply any proof of this case just because it doesn’t exist.
“I’ve immense respect for the members of the Seattle Municipal Court docket bench, and as prosecutors we must always all present nice restraint when expressing considerations in regards to the choices made by our elected judges. Nonetheless, judges even have a accountability to put aside their private emotions and comply with the legislation, and their rulings should exhibit equal equity to each people charged with a criminal offense and people, our victims and survivors, who’re affected by it.
Earlier this afternoon, I knowledgeable Choose Vaddadi and the Presiding Choose of this choice, and I need every of you to know the explanations for taking this uncommon motion. I’ll give you extra details about how the court docket will tackle this matter, and what actions we might want to tackle our particular person circumstances, tomorrow. Please contact me or your supervisors when you’ve got any questions.”
The Memo was crafted just a few weeks after a February 2024 ruling through which I disqualified a person prosecuting legal professional from trial to avert a possible ethics and evidentiary challenge – the one event on which I’ve taken that step. Nearly instantly after circulating the Memo and saying the AOP coverage, the Metropolis filed a writ interesting the disqualification ruling. The enchantment was not profitable, and the Superior Court docket upheld my choice to disqualify. That is the one enchantment that the Metropolis has ever filed towards any of my rulings. At the moment, I consider that the only real supply of discontent from the CAO is that I enforced an moral and evidentiary rule towards considered one of its attorneys.
If the CAO had respectable considerations about me as a decide, there are a number of steps it may have taken. The CAO may have communicated considerations with me or to our Presiding Choose, however it didn’t. The CAO may have appealed any of the rulings that it believed had been flawed or mirrored bias, however it didn’t. The CAO may have engaged with the Fee on Judicial Conduct, however so far as I do know, it didn’t.
As an alternative, the CAO circulated a scathing memorandum, riddled with misrepresentations or outright fabrications, launched into an Affidavit of Prejudice marketing campaign of unprecedented scope and severity, after which issued a press launch calculated to wreck my popularity. I don’t consider this conduct displays respect for this Court docket; for the judges, magistrates and employees who’re burdened and inconvenienced; for the Metropolis of Seattle that should now fund pro-tem protection; or for the victims who could also be impacted when court docket calendars are needlessly overburdened, and circumstances dismissed for fast trial violations.
I stay now, as once I campaigned, dedicated to equity and impartiality. My file displays nothing much less. No quantity of inconvenience or venom directed at me will intrude with my dedication to judicial independence and to imposing the best requirements of moral conduct in my courtroom. I ask the CAO to retract this memo, to critically look at how the memo got here to be revealed, and to contemplate whether or not the coverage furthers justice in Seattle.
