A weekly judicial accountability logic puzzle from Clutch Justice
Difficulty: ModeratePublishes: Tuesdays at 10:00 AM ESTWeek of: April 15, 2025
How to play: Read the scenario and clues. Click any cell in the grid to cycle through Y (confirmed match), X (ruled out), or blank. Each judge has exactly one county, one complaint type, and one JTC outcome. When you have all four judges placed, click Check My Solution.
The scenario
Four Michigan judges each accumulated multiple JTC complaints over a five-year window. Each judge presided in a different county. The complaints against each judge alleged a different category of misconduct, and each case reached a different resolution. Nothing about this scenario is unusual. That is the point. Use the clues to determine which judge belongs to which county, what pattern of misconduct they were accused of, and how the JTC ultimately disposed of the matter.
The clues
1
Judge Aldren is not from Ingham County and was not accused of selective bond-setting practices.
2
The judge from Oakland County had their case result in a consent agreement with conditions.
3
Judge Forsythe is from Kalamazoo County. Judge Forsythe's case did not result in a consent agreement.
4
The judge accused of improper campaign conduct was publicly censured.
5
Judge Whitmore is not from Oakland County. Judge Whitmore's case was dismissed.
6
The Ingham County judge was accused of failure to timely decide pending motions.
7
Judge Aldren did not receive a public censure.
8
The judge accused of selective bond-setting practices was not from Kalamazoo County and did not receive a consent agreement.
9
Judge Forsythe was accused of improper ex parte contact with attorneys, not improper campaign conduct.
10
The judge from Saginaw County received a private admonishment.
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.
