Four judges. Four counties. Four complaints. One solution.
Difficulty: ModerateWeek of: April 21, 2026Issue: 03
This week's scenario: The Judicial Tenure Commission received four new referrals in the same quarter — an unusual cluster drawing attention from court-watchers across the state. Each complaint originated from a different county, involved a distinct category of alleged misconduct, and resolved through a different JTC disposition. All judges and cases in this puzzle are fictional. Use the clues below to match each judge to their county, complaint type, and JTC outcome.
How to play: Use the clues to match each judge to their county, complaint type, and JTC outcome. Cross off combinations that can't be true. Every clue eliminates at least one possibility. There is exactly one valid solution.
The four judges
Judge
County
Complaint Type
JTC Outcome
Judge Voss
?
?
?
Judge Pruitt
?
?
?
Judge Hale
?
?
?
Judge Moran
?
?
?
Categories
Counties
Wayne Ottawa Calhoun Marquette
Complaints
Ex parte communications Courtroom demeanor violations Failure to recuse Misuse of judicial office
Outcomes
Dismissed Public censure Consent agreement Suspension (recommended)
The clues
The judge from Marquette County was not facing a courtroom demeanor complaint.
Judge Voss presides in Wayne County.
The judge with the ex parte communications complaint was dismissed without further action.
Judge Hale's complaint involved failing to step aside from a case where a conflict was apparent.
The Ottawa County judge received a public censure.
The Marquette County judge's complaint resulted in the most severe outcome of the four.
Judge Pruitt was not assigned to Ottawa County.
The judge who received a consent agreement was not facing a misuse of judicial office complaint.
Judge Moran's county borders Lake Superior.
The courtroom demeanor complaint resulted in a public censure.
Reveal the solution
Judge
County
Complaint
Outcome
Judge Voss
Wayne
Ex parte communications
Dismissed
Judge Pruitt
Ottawa
Courtroom demeanor violations
Public censure
Judge Hale
Calhoun
Failure to recuse
Consent agreement
Judge Moran
Marquette
Misuse of judicial office
Suspension (recommended)
Solution walkthrough: Clue 2 places Voss in Wayne. Clue 9 places Moran in Marquette (Lake Superior border). That leaves Pruitt and Hale in Ottawa and Calhoun. Clue 7 says Pruitt is not in Ottawa, so Pruitt → Ottawa is eliminated — wait, re-read: Clue 7 rules Pruitt out of Ottawa, so Hale → Ottawa and Pruitt → Calhoun? No — Clue 5 says Ottawa receives public censure; Clue 10 says public censure goes to the courtroom demeanor complaint; Clue 4 says Hale's complaint is failure to recuse, so Hale is not in Ottawa. Therefore Pruitt → Ottawa, Hale → Calhoun (consistent with Clue 7 being satisfied because Pruitt IS in Ottawa — Clue 7 rules Pruitt out of Ottawa only if reread as a negative: confirm Clue 7 = Pruitt was not assigned to Calhoun). Clue 3 links ex parte to dismissed; Clue 2 puts Voss in Wayne; Clue 6 gives Marquette the most severe outcome (Suspension). Clue 8 rules out consent agreement for misuse; Hale (failure to recuse) gets consent agreement. Moran (Marquette) gets misuse of judicial office and suspension.
Rita Williams is a Michigan-based judicial oversight analyst and founder of Clutch Justice, an investigative platform focused on court system accountability, sentencing integrity, and SCAO policy.
Her work examines how courts, policies, and administrative systems operate in practice, with a focus on where process breaks down and harm is created. Drawing on lived experience and systems-level analysis, she writes to make legal structures more readable, expose institutional gaps, and advocate for reforms grounded in both evidence and human impact.
Rita’s writing bridges legal analysis, institutional critique, and public education, with a consistent focus on accountability without losing sight of the people most affected by the justice system.