YAKIMA, Wash. -- A Yakima County judge is no longer hearing District Court criminal cases because prosecutors expressed concerns that too many of his rulings showed a lack of legal knowledge.

District Judge Ralph Thompson now handles county civil cases and contract judge duties for Grandview Municipal Court, where no complaints have been raised about his decisions.

Chief District Judge Kevin Roy said he reassigned Thompson in early November, days after the Yakima County Prosecutor's Office first indicated its attorneys intended to request that Thompson not hear any criminal matters.

Although incredibly rare, state law allows prosecutors to file a continuing affidavit of prejudice against a judge. The so-called "blanket affidavit" means Prosecuting Attorney Jim Hagarty's office doesn't have to block Thompson each time a case is filed.

Hagarty said he made the decision only after months of review in hopes that Thompson's decision-making process would improve. And he says he will stand by it, meaning Thompson won't hear criminal cases through 2010.

Defense attorneys and a legal expert suggest blocking an elected judge from hearing cases is an inappropriate response to decisions that a prosecutor dislikes.

An appeal would be the better approach, they said, with the so-called affidavits of prejudice reserved for ethical breaches or other examples of gross misconduct.

Thompson said earlier this month he has always tried to do a fair and impartial job. Expressing concern that Hagarty's move could harm his reputation as a judge, he said he hopes to one day return to hearing criminal cases.

"I strive really hard to make decisions with mercy and passion and that are legally sound. Sometimes those decisions are in favor of the prosecution and sometimes they are in favor of the defense. That's the way it is," Thompson said.

In a Dec. 1 letter to Roy, Hagarty said his questions over Thompson's decisions had reached such a point that he was concerned whether the state would receive "a fair opportunity when litigating cases in his courtroom."

"This is not something we just jumped into. We considered it for a long time," Hagarty said in an interview.

Thompson's reassignment creates potential scheduling problems for District Court, where four judges handle more than 30,000 cases annually.

Roy said Thompson's new assignment gives him plenty of work. Besides handling the Grandview contract, he does civil cases in District Court, such as small-claims matters and contested traffic tickets.

Before, judges would have rotated those duties. Under the current system, the other three judges -- Roy, Donald Engel and Rod Fitch -- are handling all of the District Court criminal cases.

Thompson, 64, was appointed to the seat by county commissioners in April 2008. He was one of 13 who sought the post.

He won election that fall to serve out the remaining two years of Judge Mike McCarthy's term after McCarthy moved up to Superior Court.

Admitted to the state bar in 1974, he was an attorney in private practice in Seattle for 18 years.

Since 1992, Thompson spent the bulk of his career as an administrative law judge for the state, handling civil cases that are decided by applying different statutes and different evidence rules than criminal cases.

But he also had years of experience as a judge pro tem in District Court for King and Yakima counties.

He said he felt well prepared to take on the duties of a criminal court when he was appointed, and said the busy caseload doesn't leave much time to dwell on each case. In hindsight, Thompson said, he would have reconsidered -- at least on procedural grounds -- a couple of the decisions highlighted in Hagarty's letter.

"At the time I did the best decision I could make based upon what I knew," Thompson said.

Neither he nor Hagarty would discuss those individual cases.

Hagarty said District Court prosecutors brought their concerns to his attention after he was appointed last January to replace Prosecuting Attorney Ron Zirkle, who retired.

Roy and Thompson said they were unaware of any complaints against Thompson before this fall.

Although Hagarty's staff raised concerns about several specific cases, the prosecutor says he has broader concerns about Thompson's knowledge of the law and the way he conducts himself in the courtroom.

Hagarty's letter to Roy cited concerns with six cases as well as a general complaint about Thompson's handling of stipulated orders of continuance, which give defendants time for treatment for alcohol or drug problems or other conditions in exchange for a reduced charge.

Hagarty's letter said Thompson became known for extending the time to meet the conditions beyond what they had agreed to, even though they typically had months to comply.

The request to block a judge from hearing a case by filing an affidavit of prejudice was built into the legal system decades ago in an effort to block corrupt judges from handling matters in which they were directly involved, said John Strait, a law professor at Seattle University who specializes in ethics.

They are more typically filed by defense attorneys who fear that a particular judge is biased against a certain type of case and defendant, such as a sex offense or white-collar fraud.

The procedure does not require attorneys to elaborate on their reasoning beyond saying they don't believe they can receive a fair trial. Attorneys are only allowed to file against one judge who is in line to handle a particular case, and the request must be made before the judge has made any major rulings.

"Blanket affidavits" such as the one advanced by Hagarty are often perceived as being intended to punish a judge or correct his behavior, Strait said.

Hagarty emphasized that his differences with Thompson were not personal. He said he only wanted to protect the public's right to secure justice in the courtroom.

Strait suggested that a blanket affidavit inappropriately deprives voters of a judge they elected to serve them.

"I think that raises separation of powers issues. I don't think the prosecution should get to trump the elected judiciary's function in that manner," Strait said.

Washington case law on blanket affidavits by a prosecutor is limited, but a Court of Appeals ruling supports the practice. Oregon and California have split on allowing blanket filings, Strait said.

Two of the defense attorneys whose cases were cited in Hagarty's letter said the prosecutor's office should have appealed instead of effectively removing Thompson from the bench.

Appeals from either side are infrequent in District Court cases, in part because the charges are relatively minor compared to the long-term consequences of a felony conviction or reversal that might affect future cases.

Greg Scott of Yakima and George Colby of Toppenish said they've appeared regularly in front of Thompson and found him fair and professional, whether they win or lose.

"I don't believe Judge Thompson is soft on crime at all," Scott said, noting that Thompson appeared reluctant to rule for his client even though a U.S. Supreme Court decision required it.

"I think he's a conscientious judge who tries to follow the law and do what is right," Scott added.

Thompson, who is paid nearly $142,000 a year, said he had not started to consider whether to run next year for the full four-year term.

He said he hopes his continued work on the bench will change Hagarty's mind so he can resume his full job duties.

"I just hope that will carry the day," Thompson said.

But Hagarty last week repeated that the affidavit would remain in place.

If he's not hearing criminal cases, there's effectively no way Thompson can prove himself in criminal court, Hagarty said earlier.

He brushed off criticism of his decision, saying it was either expected or uninformed.

"The bottom line is my office has to function," Hagarty said.

* Mark Morey can be reached at 509-577-7671 or mmorey@yakimaherald.com.

Six cases

Yakima County Prosecuting Attorney Jim Hagarty cited six specific examples when he moved to indefinitely block District Judge Ralph Thompson from hearing criminal cases. Here's a summation:

* Jan 15: A driver cited for improper lane travel that resulted in a minor crash with another vehicle contested the ticket.

The state's evidence included photographs and testimony from the victim and a state trooper. The trooper later told the case prosecutor that Thompson's unclear decision in favor of the defendant left him "dumbfounded." The trooper and case prosecutor said they felt Thompson wanted to give the defendant a break.

* Feb. 24: Thompson would not continue a case at the state's request, despite the unavailability of two witnesses and no objection by the defense. Thompson said the parties had already been told the case would not be postponed any longer.

The prosecutor also contends that Thompson miscalculated when the case would need to go to trial under the state's time limit for a defendant to receive a "speedy trial."

* March 5: Thompson extended a deferred prosecution for a drunken driving defendant despite the man having been charged with several driving infractions since agreeing to the deferred prosecution.

Hagarty acknowledged that the judge has discretion to extend the deferment, but "an equally and perhaps more compelling argument justified its revocation."

* June 19: In a written ruling, Thompson "unadmitted" evidence in a drunken driving case that was decided against the state due to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The decision did not affect the outcome, but Hagarty said it showed a lack of understanding regarding the legal process.

* Oct. 21: Potential jurors became "enraged" when the case prosecutor explained to them what the legal requirements are to convict someone of being in physical control of a stopped motor vehicle while intoxicated.

Prosecutors contended that Thompson should have done a better job of controlling the jury and should have excluded one eventual juror who said he probably would not be able to fairly enforce a stupid law, although he said he would try.

(George Colby, the defense attorney in that case, said he thought Thompson did a good job of managing the admittedly unhappy jury pool. However, the jury found his client guilty, he said.)

* Oct. 23: A deputy prosecutor was fighting a defense motion to suppress evidence and felt he should have prevailed based on the facts. Hagarty did not elaborate on those concerns, but he called the Oct. 21 experience "essentially the last straw."