Judge Pooja Vaddadi, a Seattle judge who recently faced scrutiny from city prosecutors, has been reassigned to handle parking tickets and traffic infractions instead of criminal cases. Local news media have learned that this decision was made in response to the Seattle City Attorney’s Office filing affidavits to disqualify Judge Vaddadi from future criminal cases. A spokesperson for the Seattle Municipal Court confirmed this reassignment on Thursday.
Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison announced earlier this month that her office would seek to exclude Judge Vaddadi from all future criminal cases due to what she described as a “pattern of biased rulings.” A memo from Davison’s office highlighted concerns about Judge Vaddadi’s understanding and application of evidence rules, even on basic issues. The memo stated, “The resounding input from attorneys that have appeared in [Judge Vaddadi’s] courtroom believe that her decisions demonstrate a complete lack of understanding, or perhaps even intentional disregard, of the evidence rules.”
In response to the accusations, Judge Vaddadi, speaking on her own behalf and not for the court, denied any bias and expressed surprise that Davison had not raised these concerns before seeking to have her disqualified. It is not uncommon for prosecutors and defense lawyers to file “affidavits of prejudice” to disqualify judges from specific cases. However, it is considered a rare step to block a judge from all criminal matters.
As long as the Seattle City Attorney’s Office continues to file affidavits disqualifying Judge Vaddadi, she will remain in her new role focusing on parking tickets and traffic infractions. This reassignment reflects the efforts to address the concerns raised by the city prosecutors and maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
Legal experts have noted that judges being disqualified from individual cases is a routine practice, but the decision to block a judge from all criminal matters is relatively uncommon. The situation involving Judge Vaddadi has drawn attention to the delicate balance between ensuring fair and impartial rulings and addressing concerns about judicial performance.