Seattle DUI Lawyer Nate Webb answers: "Can I get a Judge off my case!"

Can I remove a judge from my case?  The answer is yes, subject to a few conditions. 

Pursuant to CrRLJ 8.9 and RCW 3.34.110 a judge may disqualified for any reason as long as they have not made any discretionary ruling and as long as you have filed the Motion for Change of Judge within the 10 day time period explained below.  

Even if a judge has set conditions at your arraignment (bail and setting of conditions of release), as long as your motion is timely the judge can be removed from your case and would be precluded from making any further decisions with respect to your case.

When charged with a Washington State DUI, it is essential your DUI attorney knows which judges have which particular tendencies and which pro-tem judges to accept or avoid.  This is crucial to your defense and only a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer will have this knowledge.

The applicable Court Rule and Statute are outlined below:

DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE

(a) Disqualification. In any case pending in any court of limited jurisdiction, unless otherwise provided by law, the judge thereof shall be deemed disqualified to hear and try the case when the judge is in any way interested or prejudiced. The judge may enter an order of disqualification.

(b) Affidavit of Prejudice. The judge shall also enter an order of disqualification under the provisions of this rule if, before the judge makes a discretionary ruling and before the trial is commenced, 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 or for other ground provided by law. Only one such affidavit shall be filed on behalf of the same party in the case and the affidavit shall be made as to only one of the judges of the court. All rights to an affidavit of prejudice will be considered waived when filed more than 10 days after the defendant's plea is entered or arraignment is waived, unless the affidavit alleges a particular incident, conversation or utterance by the judge, which was not known to the party within the 10-day period. In multiple judge courts, or when a pro tempore or visiting judge is designated as the judge, the 10-day period shall commence on the date that the party has actual notice of assignment or reassignment to a designated judge.

(c) Transfer. Whenever a judge is disqualified, the judge shall immediately make an order transferring and removing the case to another judge authorized by law to hear the case.

 

CrRLJ 8.9.

 

District judicial officers — Disqualification.

(1) A district court judicial officer shall not preside in any of the following cases:

(a) In an action to which the judicial officer is a party, or in which the judicial officer is directly interested, or in which the judicial officer has been an attorney for a party.

(b) When the judicial officer or one of the parties believes that the parties cannot have an impartial trial or hearing before the judicial officer. The judicial officer shall disqualify himself or herself under the provisions of this section if, before any discretionary ruling has been made, a party files an affidavit that the party cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing by reason of the interest or prejudice of the judicial officer. The following are not considered discretionary rulings: (i) The arrangement of the calendar; (ii) the setting of an action, motion, or proceeding for hearing or trial; (iii) the arraignment of the accused; or (iv) the fixing of bail and initially setting conditions of release. Only one change of judicial officer is allowed each party in an action or proceeding.

(2) When a judicial officer is disqualified under this section, the case shall be heard before another judicial officer of the same county.

(3) For the purposes of this section, "judicial officer" means a judge, judge pro tempore, or court commissioner.

 

RCW 3.34.110.

 

If you are concerned about what you have heard about a particular judge and want to see if there is still time to have them removed from your case, give the Seattle DUI Pros a call to discuss your DUI arrest today (425) 398-4323 or (844) DUI-GONE.

Washington Legislature ready to enact nations strictest DUI laws...

King5.com reported today:

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Drunk driving laws are changing in Washington state after two high-profile, deadly crashes involving suspected drunk drivers in King County.

Governor Jay Inslee, D-Washington, announced a new package of driving under the influence laws has bipartisan support in Olympia.
“Every accident and every death we see involving a DUI could have been prevented,” Inslee said in a release. “People who choose to get behind the wheel must know that we are done giving them a free pass.”

The proposed legislation would result in several penalty changes.

Police would have to arrest and take the driver into custody after a first DUI offense, according to the Governor’s office. After a second offense, drivers would have to choose between treatment or a mandatory six months in jail.

Drivers convicted of a third DUI would get at least a one-year prison sentence. In addition, a three-time offender will be issues a new driver's license that would prevent them from buying alcohol for 10 years.

Frank Blair, whose daughter was killed by a DUI driver in 2010, said he was pleased with the proposed laws.
"It sends a message, we have to stop this, it's not ok," said Blair.

Judy and Dennis Schulte were run over March 25 by a suspected drunk driver, Mark Mullan, in Northeast Seattle. Mullan is also accused of seriously injuring the Schulte’s daughter and infant granddaughter. He had several prior DUI convictions.

Morgan Williams was killed April 4 by an alleged drunk driver going the wrong way on Highway 520. The driver in that crash, Michael Robertson, was awaiting trial on another DUI charge.

Nate Webb says: These would be the strictest DUI laws in the nation! No one condones drunk driving, but six months in jail or treatment (that is a change from 30 or 45 days to 180 days)! Also, booking everyone arrested for a first offense DUI is ridiculous. I have many clients who are charged yet their cases are never filed, or believe it or not, they are subsequently found not guilty or have their cases dismissed, this is draconian. What the legislature is saying is that even though there is .08 threshold, and it is actually not illegal to have a couple of drinks and drive, if some cop wants to book you regardless of your breath test you are SOL. My colleagues can attest to having clients charged with DUI even when their breath tests are below the legal limit! So even though you were found not guilty or had the case dismissed, you were placed in jail for no good reason. Is that due process, I think not.  This is simply guilty until proven innocent.  Remember, judges, cops, legislators, Supreme Court Justices have all been arrested for DUI in this state and not all were convicted, so is this proposal really justified!