The Four Corners of Justice Diagram

YesToHellWith

If you have ever wondered how and why the American Justice System is not just, then I have a solution. After my experience with the federal criminal process, which included an unjust conviction and a four-year prison sentence, I became intimately aware of its flaws. These very flaws, some which are obvious, with others far more subtle, are why we are one of the most incarcerated peoples in the world today.

You may recall the thesis of my book, The End of Justice, is that the American people are ignorant, apathetic, and fearful and these failings encourage the arrogance of governing officials. For example, at the risk of oversimplifying life in America, other than work, Monday night football, and who’s bringing the beer for poker night, our country’s core problems are secondary. Yes, most of us are busy; but this is the point. If we are too occupied with what is less important than a son or a friend serving time in prison for the wrong reasons, then we must look inwardly. We must become informed, engaged, and fearless. When we do, we will defeat the arrogance of public officials, those who abuse their positions and powers.

Candidly, we can no longer accept and should not accept that the criminal process is fair. For that matter, we should not conclude that a judge, lawyer, or a police officer is honest and competent simply because of his title.

Consider that as jurors and grand jurors, the American people have the most powerful titles in the country; yet we are unaware of our relevance. Thus, we fail to stop injustice by refusing the issuance of an indictment to a rogue prosecutor. Or after a trial is completed, we do not reach a verdict of not guilty. Rather, we simply rubberstamp what is directed or implied by those with titles, those very people who are less important than we are.

To change an unjust conclusion to the opposite, we must understand what is happening during the criminal process. This requires that we qualify and quantify what happens because of the wrongs.

This is one of the reasons I developed The Four Corners of Justice (FCOJ) diagram.

There are three ways to score the results of a trial. I will explain each briefly and give more details in a moment.

First, through the center of the FCOJ diamond is a column of zeros. This is the Zero Line. If the outcome of a criminal case were fair, the scores would be straight down the center.

The negative numbers on the left reflect the unjust and the numbers on the right reflect the just.

I divided the criminal process into ten separate components. These are listed on the left. When we score each component, we can understand not only where the system failed, but also why justice was denied. If a component was abused, the score would be cited on the left. If a component was favorable to the defendant, the score would go on the right.

The second score is the Factor. This is merely the total number of scores on the left or right. If there are three scores on the left and one on the right, a 3 and 1 would be entered as the Factors.

The third score is the Integrity of the system and the defendant. They are either neutral with a score of 0, or negative at -1, and positive at 2. The Integrity score is a means of rating each party, generally.

Most of us simply presume that a criminal trial is conducted justly and fairly. We take for granted that the system accomplishes what it should. However, most of the time we are unable to substantiate or articulate that all went well or poorly. Rather, the result is subjective and undefined. We develop an uninformed impression of the process. As such, we have no measurement of the system that verifies what was attained in any given case. Consequently, we don’t know if the result was just or not. We don’t examine the process to understand how each component of the judicial process is either assisting or defeating the end of justice. Not knowing if or how the judicial process is or is not just breeds lack of accountability for us. Our ignorance ensures America’s infamous title as one of the most incarcerated countries in the world.

With the FCOJ diagram and the ability to score any case in three different ways, we can hold ourselves accountable to what is not just and strive for a fairer system.

Now, let’s go into more detail. Looking at the components on the left, the electorate and the grand jury are at the top and bottom respectively. They are the most powerful elements in the system, or at least they are supposed to be. These two elements reflect the people—the very source of power in our republic. From the electorate, there is a progression of increased control over a legal case from the lawmakers to the investigators, and to the prosecutors until we reach the judge in the middle of the list. This progression shows a flow of power from the general, the people, to the specific, the court. Likewise, the flow is the same for the bottom half of the components from the grand jury to the jury, witnesses, and then to the defense lawyers until the judge is reached. Again, the flow of power is from the general to the specific. This flow will become extremely relevant as we further analyze how and why the FCOJ diagram functions.

The corresponding numbers to the right of the components and within the diamond reflect the potential influence that each component has on a case. The components that may have a greater impact upon other components or the case generally have a wider range of numbers. The wider ranges do not suggest that one component is any more important than the other. It merely reflects that the electorate will have less of a direct impact on the outcome than the investigators who are more involved.

Consider the following example. The prosecutor has a tremendous amount of power. If he abuses this power, he adversely influences the equal, if not more important, role of the grand jury. If the grand jury knew the full extent of its power, it would challenge the prosecutor’s representations and deny the possibility of a wrongful indictment. As it stands, prosecutors unduly influence the grand jury and, therefore, they adversely affect the balance of a case. Consequently, the prosecution is given a wider scoring range which aptly reflects this potential influence and abuse.

Given its role of electing and re-electing lawmakers, the electorate is perhaps the most powerful but underrealized aspect of the legal process. This component has an exact, but far-removed influence in a case. Lawmakers may—knowingly or not—fail to exercise their authority for the proper enforcement of laws and regulations. Lawmakers have a greater potential to influence a case than the electorate and, thus, its range of scoring is greater.

The FCOJ diagram gives greater weight to components that have a more direct impact upon verdicts. The remaining components, while fundamentally more powerful within the concept of justice, are less direct. Regrettably, these components are not fully exercised. These less influential components underscore the subsequent impact of our ignorance, apathy, and fear, while heightening the dominance of institutional arrogance among officials.

Consider an illustration. Most of us would tend to minimize the relevance of a witness compared to that of a prosecutor or a judge. However, if a witness honored the truth and refused to equivocate to threats, coercion, or duress, he would be unaffected by those in authority. Regrettably, the prosecutor can manipulate and directly influence a witness. When the witness caves and agrees to a conspiracy charge in exchange for leniency, if the witness testifies against the defendant, the prosecutor heavily influences the case. Any positive benefit that would have been gained by the defendant from the testimony of the witness is effectively destroyed. This is a prime example of injustice.

The result is telling. The jury sees a witness who agrees with or confirms a prosecutor’s assertion. The jury does not see that the witness was unduly prejudiced by the government or that the truth was defeated. The jury, which is far more powerful than the prosecutor, is influenced by both the witness and the prosecutor. As such, this cascading effect of arrogance maligns truth and justice throughout the judicial system.

The people no longer exercise supremacy and inherent power. We no longer have a philosophy that true crimes are limited to loss of life, liberty, or property. We have the inversion. Consider this possibility. The arbitrary and sweeping influence of the judicial branch affects the executive branch, which includes the prosecutor. The arbitrary and sweeping influence of the executive branch affects the legislative branch, the creators of law. The arbitrary and sweeping influence of the legislative branch affects the power, sovereignty, and freedom of the people. Consequently, institutional arrogance exists only because of the ignorance, apathy, and fear of the people, the very source of power that is the electorate and grand jury. Obviously, if both the electorate and grand jury were effectively employed, this inversion of power and perversion of justice would be limited, if not negated outright.

Let’s go into the just and unjust scoring. Given the dominance of institutional arrogance in America, there is a greater possibility that each of the ten components will have a negative impact on a case. For this reason, the point values on the left side of the FCOJ diagram are listed in the negative and the numbers on the right are weighted with an even greater positive value. This scoring approach is used is for a reason.

If the legal system is truly biased against defendants, we would expect the scores to reflect this conclusion. We would expect there to be negative scores on the left side of the Zero Line. Remember, our supposition, in part, is that the conduct and operation of the legal process is why America suffers from a high rate of imprisonment. To preclude any unjust bias, the value of any positive benefit received by the defendant from any of the ten components is increased. Weighted scores on the JUST side of the diagram counter any negative scores, akin to grading on a curve.

If the legal system operated in accord with truth, with the sole intent to seek justice, a case would be scored from top to bottom along the center of the diagram, the Zero Line. Impartiality and integrity would never deviate to the left of this distinct barrier; it would not be possible or permitted. Only because of injustice and dubious motives does a score exist to the left of the Zero Line. For example, if a lawyer does not adequately defend a client, the points must naturally decrease to reflect an injustice and prejudice. A negative score would be appropriate, but entirely unnecessary. Conversely, if the defense lawyer goes above and beyond and ferociously defends his client (which should happen as a matter of course), the reverse is true. The lawyer seeks truth and justice, and this would result in a weighted score to the right of the Zero Line.

At the conclusion of a case within a just system, there would be no scores on the UNJUST or left side of the diagram. We would expect the judicial process to track along the centerline or err on the side of caution, with the defendant receiving the benefit of any superlative performance and scores on the right. Any possibility of the system being unjust would result in more scores to the left. The total on each side of the diagram would tell the tale. Any grand total in the negative side greater than the total for the positive would confirm the errors and arrogance of the judicial system.

Let’s discuss the Factor score. The Factor tracks with the individual ratings of the ten components of the legal system. There are two scores for the Factor—one for the left side of the diagram and one for the right. The Factor is simply the number of scores of the ten components that occur on either side of the Zero Line. The Factor provides some balance and context for cases that have a high or low score on either side. For example, if only three components are scored on a given side, this would reflect differently than if seven components made up the total number of scores on the other side. Additionally, since the scores on the right are weighted, a higher score with a low Factor would be telling

Now let’s discuss the Integrity score. The third and final score that comprises the FCOJ diagram is the assessment of the Integrity of both the judicial process and the defendant. This score is independent of the two sets of scores which rate the ten components individually and collectively. The Integrity scores are located at the top and bottom of the diagram and serve as an overall reflection as to whether each party is consistent with truth and justice. The significance of this score is simple and powerful. While one could easily cite it as unfair, since there are ten parts of the legal process and only one defendant, to do so would be to dismiss an expectation that the judicial process is just. If one component were to impugn the entire judicial system, it would, like a bad apple, spoil or taint the whole. Moreover, since the life and liberty of a defendant is dependent upon a virtuous process, the legal system must be scored as one. In the end, we would expect this score to validate the total of the points assessed for the ten components and the number for the Factor on either side of the Zero Line.

With the explanation of the three scoring elements of the FCOJ diagram, it should be apparent that this comprehensive assessment of the judicial process and the defendant, given the particulars of the case, is not merely concerned with justice and injustice. These scores enable us to shun our tendency to accept that the outcome of some unknown case is JUST simply for the fact that it was adjudicated through the judicial system. The FCOJ scores give substance to an otherwise unappreciated process that yields an all-too-often negative outcome which is not challenged or subjected to scrutiny. Such antipathy and disengagement with the judicial system may end with the efforts of the FCOJ diagram.

The FCOJ diagram invites us to look inwardly. The FCOJ snapshot should jar our mental and emotional constructs. Forced to reconcile with the existence of a negative score, we must consider who we are and who we are not. When we see a score to the left of the Zero Line, we should ask how and why not only of the legal system, but of ourselves.

Not only is the FCOJ a viable means of measuring justice and injustice, the diagram is a call for accountability. To be held accountable means that we should ask:

1. Do the people hold themselves accountable for laws that should not be written?

2. Do we hold lawmakers accountable for creating such laws?

3. Are viable and credible laws enforced with discretion and fairness?

4. Are we so fearful that we do not account for laws which should not be enforced?

As the electorate, we would serve the interests of society if we asked and sought accountability from each of the ten components. Those who work for and within these components are no different than us. Consider elected officials. What do they know when they decide to run for office? They know nothing more than we do, and perhaps less. They have their opinions and passions and lack knowledge and experience. More importantly, who do they become? With newfound power and a lack of accountability are they arbitrarily hawkish on crime and criminals? Do they, therefore, lump non-criminals in the same class?

Imagine the value of asking questions of all ten components. We gain context and clarity with the FCOJ diagram. We can quantify and qualify a case and the operation of the judicial system.

The FCOJ diagram reflects the outcome of a case. It reflects not one, but all ten elements of the process, a system that supposedly reaches just conclusions. It reflects ten individuals or parties, the application of their power, and their psychological and emotional motives. The FCOJ diagram represents the accidental and purposeful weaving that each component injects into a conclusion which, if reflected negatively as a score, depicts the regrettable state of the justice system and our culture and is, in fact, a revelation of the hearts and minds of the people.

As we put the FCOJ diagram to practical use, step back and ponder the scope of our problem once more. We did not acquire our high rate of incarceration by accident. Furthermore, the rate of incarceration will not be reduced by accident. Any case that even hints of injustice implicates the core disease of ignorance, apathy, and fear of the American people. Each implicates the arrogance of officials who ensure that injustice prevails.

Let’s apply the FCOJ diagram to a specific case to understand the practical use of the diagram and the repercussions of the system, a process that is woefully underappreciated, much less qualified and quantified with any reasonable means of measurement. With this review, we can then imagine such injustice occurring repeatedly everyday throughout America.

The Case against Michael Morton

In August of 1986, Christine Morton was murdered within her home in Texas.

Michael Morton, Christine’s husband, was eventually arrested and convicted of the crime.

Though police officers and the Williamson County District Attorney, Ken Anderson, believed they had arrested the culpable party, this was far from the truth.

After serving twenty-five years in prison, and after DNA evidence proved his innocence, Michael Morton was released.

How did this injustice ever occur?

When the criminal case was reopened, significant notes were found to be missing.

· Notably, several witnesses had provided investigators with a description of a man other than Michael Morton, who had gone to work earlier that morning. The other man was seen in and around the Morton residence the day that Christine was murdered. One of the witnesses was her son, Eric, who was three years old at the time. Eric had referred to a man as a “monster.”

· Secondly, a check in the name of Christine Anderson was cashed with a forged signature after her murder.

· Finally, Christine’s credit card was also used in San Antonio.

In 2008, Michael and his lawyer learned that the original case was not built upon solid evidence and conclusions. They became aware of the missing witness descriptions, cashed check, and the use of Christine’s credit card.

In 2011, a bloody bandana that had been discovered at the time of the crime and was one hundred yards from the Morton house was tested. Christine’s blood and that of Mark Alan Norwood were found on it, not the blood of Michael.

Michael Morton learned that Ken Anderson had withheld key evidence. Anderson, who was at the time a district judge for the State of Texas, resigned. After an investigation, he acknowledged his guilt. He was sentenced to ten days in jail and was disbarred; but he was also afforded the opportunity to regain his law license in five years.

The Texas Legislature had attempted discovery reform within the justice system to no avail. After Michael Morton’s release from prison, he was able to advance that cause.

Looking at the Four Corners of Justice diagram, we can arrive at several conclusions.

1) The electorate, grand jury, and Texas legislature were far too detached from the reality of the discovery problem, which means each ignored an official’s possible lying for personal gain.

2) The policemen were culpable with this injustice as well, if only by virtue of their silence. The police had to have been involved with the details of the investigation and are presumed to have known during the trial of the missing details from the case and Anderson’s omission of important facts.

3) Additionally, the police must be challenged for not pursuing the evidence that was the bloody bandana.

4) The prosecuting attorney, Ken Anderson, was and is a disgrace to the legal profession. He committed an unspeakable act against humanity. To do as he did to Michael Morton is to do the same to all Texans.

5) Would it have been fair to subject Anderson to 25 years in prison? An eye for an eye, so to speak? Should he have been allowed the possibility to renew his law license?

6) To what extent are we as citizens culpable for our disengagement with the criminal and justice systems at the local, state, and federal levels? Are our individual and collective ignorance, apathy, and fear a reason for unjust convictions?

Undeniable is the consideration that both police officers and the prosecutor, Ken Anderson, thought more of themselves than for both truth and the lives of other souls. Michael Morton and his son Eric, along with the relatives of both Christine and Michael, were sacrificed on a wholesale basis for the arrogance of public officials and their own personal notoriety and gain.

Hypothetically, had Morton received the death penalty, would officials have taken a different posture? Would it be fair to conclude that Michael’s imprisonment and the attendant repercussions were worse than death?

Anderson, and those who played minor roles in this tragedy, if only by their inaction, should have received far greater punishment.

Perhaps the lesson from the Michael Morton case is even more sobering when we understand that Ken Anderson was nothing more than a liar with a title. Admittedly, and we will find those who are of Anderson’s ilk in the legal profession, he was void of the character, principles, and truth required for someone in this position. Perhaps Anderson was once an honorable professional in his past. Alas, with the passage of time and the intoxicating effects of success, hubris lured Anderson to his corruptible end. We would be mindful to guard against a belief that officials faithfully serve the public good, truth, and justice.

If you would like a free PDF file of my book The End of Justice, please message YesToHellWith on the substack.com

And always remember, The End of Justice is the absence of truth.