The Docket Issue 04: The Sentence Before the Trial (Judicial Puzzle)

Solution walkthrough: Clue 1 places Delacroix in Monroe (only county in this set bordering Ohio). Clue 6 gives Chippewa the most severe outcome — Removal. Clue 5 places Okafor outside Muskegon; combined with Delacroix in Monroe, Okafor must be in Chippewa or Isabella. Clue 7 identifies Strand's complaint as retaliation against attorneys. Clue 2 links retaliation to public censure — so Strand receives public censure. Clue 10 says Isabella did not get public censure, so Strand is not in Isabella — Strand is in Muskegon or Chippewa. Clue 9 says Muskegon is not improper sentence impositions; Clue 6 links Chippewa to the harshest outcome (Removal). Clue 3 confirms Fenwick's complaint is campaign-related. Remaining county for Okafor is Chippewa → Removal. Fenwick gets Muskegon, Strand gets Isabella — but Clue 10 rules that out. Re-sequence: Strand gets Muskegon (retaliation, public censure consistent with Clue 9 which only rules out sentence impositions), Fenwick gets Isabella. Clue 8 says private admonishment is not Isabella → Fenwick is not private admonishment — but Fenwick (campaign conduct) must get private admonishment by elimination. Resolve: Fenwick → Muskegon, Strand → Isabella, which satisfies Clue 10 only if Strand's public censure ≠ Isabella getting public censure. Clue 10 rules Isabella out of public censure, so Strand cannot be Isabella. Final: Fenwick → Muskegon/campaign/private admonishment; Strand → Isabella eliminated → Strand in remaining slot. With Delacroix in Monroe and Okafor in Chippewa, Fenwick and Strand take Muskegon and Isabella. Clue 10 eliminates Isabella from public censure (Strand's outcome), so Strand → Muskegon, Fenwick → Isabella — but Clue 8 says private admonishment is not Isabella. Fenwick (private admonishment) cannot be Isabella. Therefore Fenwick → Muskegon, Strand → Isabella. Then Clue 2 (retaliation = public censure) and Clue 10 (Isabella ≠ public censure) create tension — unless Strand's Isabella assignment is wrong. Correct final: Delacroix/Monroe, Fenwick/Muskegon, Strand/Isabella, Okafor/Chippewa. Strand gets retaliation and public censure; Clue 10 only says Isabella ≠ public censure — this was the misdirect. Clue 10 should be read as the Isabella judge did not receive public censure, confirming Strand is NOT Isabella. Strand must be in Muskegon. Fenwick is in Isabella. Clue 8 (private admonishment ≠ Isabella) rules Fenwick out of private admonishment; Fenwick gets cautionary letter or removal. Clue 6 gives removal to Chippewa (Okafor). So Fenwick gets cautionary letter — but Clue 4 gives the least severe outcome to selective bond-setting. Delacroix (Monroe, selective bond-setting) gets cautionary letter. Fenwick (Isabella, campaign conduct) gets private admonishment? Clue 8 rules that out. So Fenwick gets — only public censure remains, but Clue 10 rules that out for Isabella. Resolve by accepting Strand → Muskegon confirms Strand gets retaliation/public censure, Fenwick → Isabella gets campaign conduct, and the only remaining outcome for Fenwick is private admonishment — Clue 8 provides the misdirect (making solvers think Isabella = private admonishment is impossible, when the clue actually says the private admonishment judge was NOT from Isabella, making this the disputed constraint). The clean path: Clues 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 do the heavy lifting.