Table of Contents
Introduction: The Case I Couldn’t Win
My name is Alex, and for the better part of two decades, I’ve built a career on the architecture of communication.
As a strategist, I’ve helped organizations build bridges of understanding with their employees, their customers, and the public.
I prided myself on my ability to distill complex problems into clear, actionable messages.
I believed, with the certainty of a seasoned expert, that if you presented people with the right facts, they would arrive at the right conclusions.
Then came the project that shattered that belief.
It was a high-stakes software implementation for a major client, and it was careening off the rails.
The team was talented, but the execution was a mess.
Deadlines were being missed, the budget was hemorrhaging, and the client’s early feedback was scathing.
My job was to intervene—to get the project back on track.
I spent a week meticulously gathering data.
I compiled spreadsheets, timelines, and direct quotes from client emails.
My presentation was a masterclass in objectivity.
I laid out the facts, one by one: the project was 35% over budget, key deliverables were six weeks behind schedule, and client satisfaction scores had dropped from 9.2 to 3.5.
My intention was pure; I was a doctor presenting a diagnosis, armed with X-rays and lab results.
I was there to help.
The result was a catastrophe.
The room grew cold.
Faces hardened.
Instead of a collaborative problem-solving session, I was met with a wall of silent fury and bristling defensiveness.
The project lead accused me of launching a political attack.
The lead engineer defensively justified every technical choice.
The team didn’t hear the data; they heard a verdict.
They didn’t see information; they saw an indictment.
In their eyes, I wasn’t a strategist trying to help; I was a prosecutor presenting a case for their incompetence, and they were the defendants on trial.
The conversation collapsed.
Trust, the essential currency of any team, was incinerated in a matter of minutes.
The project was beyond saving and was ultimately cancelled, a multi-million-dollar failure that left a scar on my career and a deeper one on my confidence.
That failure sent me on a years-long quest to understand a single, maddening question: Why does the delivery of pure, objective information so often land like a subjective indictment? How could a message, so carefully constructed to be helpful, become a weapon that triggers conflict, destroys trust, and guarantees failure? The answer, I would discover, wasn’t in a business textbook or a psychology journal.
It was buried in the arcane language of the United States legal code, in the profound distinction between two legal documents that would give me a whole new way to see the world.
Part I: The Epiphany in the Legal Code: A New Paradigm for Communication
In the years following that disastrous project, I became a student of failure, dissecting every difficult conversation I witnessed or participated in.
I saw the same pattern everywhere: in performance reviews that devolved into arguments, in public debates that generated more heat than light, in family disputes that festered for years.
One person would present what they saw as “just the facts,” and the other would react as if they’d been judged and found wanting.
My breakthrough came from a place I never expected: a deep dive into the federal criminal process.
I was reading about how prosecutors bring charges against a defendant and came across two key terms: the Indictment and the Information.
On the surface, they seem similar—both are formal documents that accuse a person of a crime.1
But the process behind them revealed a profound distinction that held the key to my entire communication dilemma.
It gave me a powerful new paradigm for understanding human interaction.
Deconstructing the Indictment Model of Communication
In the federal system, a felony prosecution must, by constitutional right, begin with an indictment.2
An indictment is a formal accusation returned by a grand jury—a body of 16 to 23 ordinary citizens—after they have heard evidence presented by a prosecutor.1
If this jury of peers decides there is “probable cause” to believe a crime was committed, they issue a “true bill” of indictment, and the case proceeds to trial.1
This process is the perfect metaphor for our most common and destructive mode of communication.
When we operate under the Indictment Model, we are not simply sharing observations.
We have already conducted a secret grand jury proceeding in our own minds.
We have gathered the evidence (the missed deadline, the sharp tone of voice, the messy room), we have heard the prosecutor’s case (our own internal narrative of what that evidence means), and we have reached a verdict of wrongdoing.
The conversation that follows is not a dialogue; it is the public reading of the charge.
The other person is instantly cast as the defendant.
We may think we are being helpful, but our subtext—our tone, our body language, our framing—broadcasts the verdict we have already reached.
The purpose of the conversation, from the listener’s perspective, is not to understand, but to defend.
This is precisely what I had done in that failed project meeting.
I didn’t present data for discussion; I presented it as evidence to support a pre-formed conclusion that the team was failing.
They weren’t my partners in problem-solving; they were the accused.
Deconstructing the Information Model of Communication
The alternative to the indictment is a document called a “criminal information”.1
An Information serves a similar purpose—it formally charges a person with a crime—but it bypasses the grand jury entirely.
It is filed directly by the prosecutor.7
Legally, it must be a “plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged”.9
It is a document stripped of external judgment, designed for clarity and efficiency.
This provides the framework for the Information Model of communication.
In this model, the goal is not to deliver a verdict but to present the essential, observable facts as a basis for a conversation.
It is a commitment to separating objective reality from subjective interpretation.
It’s the difference between saying, “This report is sloppy and unprofessional,” (an indictment) and saying, “This report contains three factual errors on page two, and the client requires 100% accuracy,” (an information).
The first statement judges the person; the second describes the problem.
But the most critical piece of the puzzle wasn’t just the difference between the two documents.
It was the legal mechanism that allows an Information to be used for serious crimes.
A defendant has a Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury.
The only way a prosecutor can proceed by Information in a felony case is if the defendant waives that right in open court.1
This was the epiphany.
Effective communication isn’t just about the speaker choosing to present an “Information” instead of an “Indictment.” It’s about the speaker creating an environment of such profound psychological safety that the listener feels they can voluntarily waive their right to be defensive.
Defensiveness is the communication equivalent of demanding a grand jury.
It’s a demand for a buffer, a shield against a perceived attack.
When a listener feels safe enough to lower that shield and engage with the facts directly, that is when true dialogue can begin.
The ethical communicator, then, models themselves after an ethical prosecutor who understands this dynamic.
A prosecutor has the discretion to pursue the lengthy, often prosecutor-driven grand jury process, or to work with the defendant toward a more direct and efficient resolution via an Information.2
The latter path requires more discipline and a focus on collaboration, but it is ultimately more productive.
This reframed my entire understanding of my role.
My job wasn’t to win a case; it was to create the conditions for a waiver.
And to do that, I first had to understand the deep-seated psychological reasons why my “information” kept landing like an indictment.
Part II: The Psychology of the Accused: Why Information Triggers the Defensiveness Reflex
My legal epiphany gave me a new “what”—the Information vs. Indictment model.
But I still needed to understand the “why.” Why is the human brain so exquisitely sensitive to perceived indictments? Why does it reflexively throw up a wall of defense, even when the “facts” presented are technically true? The answers lie deep in the wiring of our psychology, in the complex interplay of emotion, cognition, and perception.
The Brain on Trial: The Physiology of Defensiveness
When we perceive criticism or blame, our brains don’t register it as a data point to be analyzed.
They register it as a threat.
Defensiveness is a powerful, often unconscious, defense mechanism designed to protect our ego and sense of self-worth from feelings of shame, hurt, or inadequacy.14
It is a primal response rooted in a fear of rejection, failure, or humiliation—threats that, in our evolutionary past, could mean social exclusion and a risk to our very survival.14
This perceived threat triggers the amygdala, the brain’s alarm system, launching a physiological fight-or-flight response.
Adrenaline and cortisol flood our system.
Our heart rate increases, our thinking narrows, and our capacity for higher-order reasoning plummets.
In this state, we are neurologically incapable of open, collaborative listening.
Instead, our brain hijacks our behavior, compelling us to engage in defensive tactics:
- Justifying: We explain in minute detail why our actions were reasonable.
- Making Excuses: We point to external factors beyond our control.
- Blaming: We shift the focus to the other person’s faults (“Well, you do it too!”).
- Playing the Victim: We agree with the criticism but in a way that induces guilt in the accuser.14
This creates a vicious cycle.
Our defensiveness often comes across as an attack, which then triggers a defensive response in the other person, leading to an escalating loop of conflict that makes resolution impossible.14
Understanding this biological reality was humbling.
I realized that my team’s defensive reaction wasn’t a sign of their weakness or unwillingness to listen; it was a predictable, physiological response to the indictment they perceived from me.
Their brains were quite literally on trial, and they were mounting the only defense they could.
The Framing Effect: How the Presentation Becomes the Verdict
The problem is that a message doesn’t have to be an explicit accusation to trigger this defensive cascade.
The way information is presented—its “frame”—can be more powerful than the information itself.
This is a well-documented cognitive bias known as the framing effect.17
Our brains are not purely logical processors.
We are highly susceptible to how choices are framed, particularly when they are presented in terms of gains versus losses.
Research shows we are naturally risk-averse and feel the pain of a loss more acutely than the pleasure of an equivalent gain.17
This means that if you frame information in a way that highlights a negative outcome or a loss, it will have a much stronger—and more threatening—emotional impact.
Consider a simple example: a disinfectant that “kills 95% of germs” is framed as a gain.
The exact same product, described as one where “only 5% of germs survive,” is framed as a loss or failure.
Though logically identical, most people will choose the first option because its frame feels more positive and certain.17
In my failed project meeting, I presented the facts framed entirely as losses: budget overruns, missed deadlines, declining client satisfaction.
Each data point was another nail in the coffin.
I thought I was being objective, but my framing was inherently negative and accusatory.
I had inadvertently built a frame of failure around the team, and they reacted to the frame, not just the facts within it.
The framing effect is so potent that it influences critical decisions in fields like law, where it can affect plea bargaining, and medicine, where it can alter a patient’s choice of cancer treatment.17
It shows that overvaluing
how something is said can cause us to undervalue, or even completely misinterpret, what is being said.
Subtext as the Unseen Evidence: The Language of Indictment
The most insidious indictments are often the ones that are never spoken.
They are carried in the subtext—the vast ocean of meaning that lies beneath the surface of our words.19
Our tone of voice, facial expressions, posture, and word choice can transform a seemingly neutral statement into a damning accusation.
- Tone and Non-verbals: A statement like, “You finished the report,” can be a simple acknowledgment. But said with a flat tone and a raised eyebrow, it becomes, “You finally finished the report, and I’m not impressed.” The words are informational; the subtext is an indictment of your timeliness and quality.21
- Word Choice and Phrasing: The use of absolute or generalizing words like “always” or “never” immediately shifts a conversation from a specific observation to a judgment of character. Similarly, starting a sentence with an accusatory question like “Why did you…?” puts the listener on the defensive before they’ve even had a chance to explain.22 It presumes negative intent.
- Implicit Indictments: Even well-intentioned communication frameworks, like “I-Statements,” can be weaponized. A statement like, “I feel like you don’t care about this project,” is not a true I-Statement; it’s an accusation of the other person’s feelings disguised as your own.23 The indictment is hidden in plain sight.
This led me to a crucial realization.
An indictment is often co-created.
A speaker might believe they are delivering neutral information, but their unintentional subtext—perhaps born from their own cognitive biases like a “better-than-average” bias that lends a condescending tone—is received by a listener who is primed by their own biases to interpret ambiguity negatively.24
For example, research has shown a tendency in some individuals toward an “interpretation bias,” where they are more likely to ascribe negative intent to socially ambiguous situations.24
In this collision of unspoken biases, a communicative “wrongful indictment” occurs.
An accusation is perceived where none may have been explicitly intended.
This was the final piece of the puzzle explaining my own failure.
I had walked into that room armed with facts, but my subtext—my stress, my frustration, my pre-formed belief that the team was failing—leaked through every word and slide.
The team, already under pressure and likely fearing negative consequences, interpreted my ambiguous, data-heavy presentation through a lens of threat.
We co-created the indictment that destroyed the project.
Part III: The High Cost of Wrongful Indictments: Cautionary Tales from the Courtroom to the Boardroom
The “Indictment Model” isn’t just a recipe for a bad meeting; it’s a destructive force with devastating real-world consequences.
When a system—whether it’s a legal system, a media landscape, or a corporate culture—is built to secure verdicts rather than uncover truth, the results are catastrophic.
The cost is measured in lost freedom, eroded public trust, and squandered human potential.
The Ultimate Precedent: The Darrell Cannon Story and the Cost of Coerced Confessions
To understand the gravest possible outcome of an indictment-focused system, we must look to the courtroom.
Consider the case of Darrell Cannon.
In 1983, Cannon was arrested by Chicago police detectives working under the infamous Commander Jon Burge.
Over a period of hours, he was subjected to horrific torture designed not to gather information, but to coerce a confession that would secure a conviction.25
The methods were barbaric.
Detectives drove Cannon to a remote location, repeatedly pressed an electric cattle prod to his genitals, and staged mock executions by shoving a shotgun into his mouth and pulling the trigger.26
This was the ultimate expression of the indictment model: the verdict of guilt was pre-determined, and the “conversation” was merely a means to force the defendant to ratify that verdict.
Cannon eventually broke and gave a false confession to a murder he did not commit.26
He was convicted and spent 24 years in prison before his conviction was finally overturned, one of over 120 victims of Burge’s torture ring.26
The Darrell Cannon case is a chilling testament to what happens when a system prioritizes indictment above all else.
It reveals that this is not merely an interpersonal failure but a systemic one.
The torture was a pattern and practice, enabled for years by a system-wide cover-up that reached high levels of city and county government.26
The goal was not justice; it was closing cases and securing convictions, even at the cost of truth and human life.
This stark reality grounds the metaphor of this report in its most severe and tangible consequences, showing how an obsession with judgment over fact-finding can lead to the ultimate wrongful indictment.
The Court of Public Opinion: Journalism as Information vs. Indictment
The same destructive dynamic plays out in the court of public opinion, where the modern media landscape often blurs the line between presenting information and issuing a public indictment.
The ethical foundation of journalism, as codified by organizations like the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), is built on the “Information Model.” The SPJ Code of Ethics is a framework for presenting facts responsibly.
Its core tenets are to seek truth and report it, which involves verifying information, providing context, avoiding misrepresentation, and diligently seeking out subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.31
It also stresses the importance of clearly labeling advocacy and commentary to distinguish them from news.35
This is the journalistic equivalent of filing a legal “Information”—presenting a plain, concise statement of facts for the public to evaluate.
In stark contrast, sensationalism operates on the “Indictment Model.” It is an editorial tactic that prioritizes shock value over informative content, using emotionally loaded language, omitting facts, and presenting biased impressions to excite the greatest number of viewers.36
This is “trial by media.” It issues a public verdict, often before all the facts are known, undermining the legal principle of the presumption of innocence and jeopardizing the right to a fair trial.38
This practice is driven by systemic pressures, including the demands of a 24-hour news cycle, intense market competition, and a profit motive that rewards whatever grabs the most attention.37
The result is a distortion of public discourse and an erosion of the public’s trust in both the media and the justice system.36
The Corporate Fallout: Indictment Culture in the Workplace
The high cost of an indictment culture is just as palpable in the professional world.
When leaders and managers adopt a style of communication that focuses on blame and judgment, the fallout is swift and severe.
Feedback delivered as an indictment creates a culture of fear.
It suffocates the psychological safety necessary for employees to take risks, admit mistakes, and innovate.
Instead of engaging with problems, employees learn to hide them.
Engagement plummets, and talented people eventually leave.41
Conversely, organizations that intentionally build an “Information Model” culture reap enormous benefits.
Consider Cargill, the global food producer.
The company transformed its performance management by shifting from traditional annual reviews—which often feel like a yearly indictment—to a system of continuous, forward-looking conversations between managers and employees.
This focus on everyday feedback and development was found to have the potential to improve performance by nearly 40%.42
Similarly, Google famously eschewed traditional performance ratings for years, focusing instead on a coaching model where managers help employees set and achieve ambitious goals (Objectives and Key Results, or OKRs).
This approach is rooted in providing the information and support needed for growth, not in delivering a verdict on past performance.42
These case studies provide clear business evidence for the power of the Information Model.
They demonstrate that fostering a culture of feedback—where information is a tool for development, not a weapon of judgment—is a direct driver of productivity, profitability, and employee satisfaction.42
These examples from law, media, and business reveal a crucial pattern.
The tendency toward indictment is rarely just a personal failing.
It is a systemic issue.
The Chicago police torture scandal, the rise of media sensationalism, and the persistence of fear-based corporate cultures are all products of systems that, by design or by default, incentivize and reward the delivery of verdicts over the collaborative pursuit of truth.
To truly solve the problem, we must do more than just change our individual habits; we must consciously redesign the systems in which we communicate to favor information over indictment.
Part IV: The Ethical Prosecutor’s Playbook: A Framework for Constructive Dialogue
Understanding the problem is the first step, but the real work lies in building a better practice.
How do we consciously shift from the destructive Indictment Model to the constructive Information Model? The answer requires a new mindset and a practical playbook.
I found the perfect operational model in another field dedicated to high-stakes problem-solving: medicine.
The Diagnostic Mindset: From Prosecutor to Physician
If the Indictment Model casts us as prosecutors trying to win a case, the Information Model asks us to become physicians trying to make an accurate diagnosis.
The goal of a prosecutor is to secure a conviction.
The goal of a physician is to understand the root cause of a problem and collaborate on an effective treatment plan.
This shift from a legalistic to a diagnostic mindset is transformative.
A patient-centered medical diagnosis is a masterclass in the Information Model.43
It is an iterative, collaborative, and investigative process that involves three key stages, which we can adapt into a powerful communication framework 45:
- Taking a Clinical History: Gathering complete and unbiased information.
- Forming a Differential Diagnosis: Considering multiple hypotheses instead of locking onto one.
- Developing a Treatment Plan: Co-creating a forward-looking solution.
This “Ethical Prosecutor’s Playbook,” informed by the diagnostic process, provides a clear path to communicating with information, not indictment.
Principle 1: The Clinical History (Presenting the “Information”)
A good diagnosis begins with a thorough and accurate patient history.
A good conversation begins with a clear, objective, and non-judgmental presentation of the facts.
- Legal Standard: The foundation of a criminal Information is a “plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts”.9
- Medical Parallel: A clinician’s first step is to elicit the patient’s story and gather data through open-ended questions, active listening, and a physical exam, all while building rapport and trust.43
- Actionable Advice:
- Separate Data from Story: Before you speak, you must rigorously separate the objective, observable data from the subjective story you have constructed about it. The data is what a camera would record. The story is your interpretation, filled with judgments and assumptions. For example:
- Data: “The report was submitted at 4 p.m. on Friday; the deadline was 12 p.m. on Thursday.”
- Story: “You were lazy and irresponsible, and you don’t respect deadlines or the team.”
The goal is to present only the data. - Use Neutral, Specific Language: Avoid loaded words (e.g., “failure,” “sloppy”), generalizations (e.g., “always,” “never”), and character attacks. Focus on specific, concrete behaviors, not personality traits.41 The more specific and factual you are, the less room there is for the listener to feel personally indicted.
Principle 2: The Differential Diagnosis (Waiving the “Grand Jury”)
A novice physician might seize on one symptom and jump to a conclusion.
An expert clinician, however, creates a differential diagnosis—a list of all possible conditions that could be causing the symptoms—and then works systematically to rule them in or O.T.51
This is the key to avoiding premature judgment and inviting collaboration.
- Legal Standard: A defendant can waive their right to a grand jury, choosing to become an active participant in a process based on a clear statement of facts.12
- Medical Parallel: The physician doesn’t just present a single diagnosis; they explore multiple possibilities and use tests to gather more data, refining their hypothesis along the way.45
- Actionable Advice:
- Invite Collaboration into the Diagnostic Process: After presenting the objective information (the “symptoms”), you must resist the urge to provide the diagnosis. Instead, invite the other person to help you form the differential diagnosis. Ask open, curious questions:
- “This is the data I’m seeing. What’s your perspective on what’s happening?”
- “I’ve noticed X and Y. Can you help me understand the context from your side?”
- “Are there any obstacles or challenges I might not be aware of?” 50
- Treat Their Explanation as Crucial Data: The other person’s “self-diagnosis” is not an excuse; it is a vital piece of information. They may reveal a critical piece of context you were missing—a personal crisis, a technical roadblock, a miscommunication from another department. This immediately transforms the conversation from a one-way indictment into a two-way investigation. You have created the safety needed for them to waive their right to be defensive.
Principle 3: The Treatment Plan (Co-creating the Solution)
Once a working diagnosis is reached, the focus shifts to treatment.
A patient-centered physician doesn’t just hand down a prescription; they engage in shared decision-making, collaborating with the patient to create a plan that works for them and aligns with their values and goals.43
- Legal Standard: The ultimate goal of the legal process is to arrive at a just and final resolution.
- Medical Parallel: The physician and patient jointly develop a treatment plan, discussing options, benefits, and risks to ensure the patient is empowered and committed to the path forward.43
- Actionable Advice:
- Shift from Past to Future: The diagnostic phase is about understanding the past. The treatment phase is about building the future. Frame the conversation around forward-looking solutions. Instead of dwelling on blame, ask: “Given this, what are the next steps?” or “How can we work together to ensure a different outcome next time?”
- Define a Clear, Agreed-Upon Plan: A conversation without a clear action plan is just talk. End the discussion by co-creating and summarizing the next steps, responsibilities, and timelines. This provides clarity, ensures accountability, and gives the other person a concrete path to success, reinforcing that the goal was always about improvement, not punishment.41
To make this framework as practical as possible, here is a conversion chart to help translate common indictment-style phrases into their more effective, information-based alternatives.
| The Indictment (What We Often Say) | The Hidden Verdict (What They Hear) | The Information (A Better Way to Frame It) |
| “Why are you always late to our morning meetings?” | “You are unreliable, disrespectful, and don’t care about the team.” | “I’ve noticed that on the last three Mondays, you’ve joined the 9 a.m. meeting around 9:15. It’s crucial we’re all aligned at the start of the week. Is there something about the timing that’s creating a challenge?” |
| “This report is full of mistakes.” | “You are incompetent and your work is sloppy.” | “I’ve reviewed the Q3 report and found some discrepancies in the data on pages 3 and 7. Accuracy is critical for the board presentation. Can we walk through it together this afternoon to get it corrected?” |
| “You completely dropped the ball on the Acme account.” | “You are a failure and you’ve let everyone down.” | “The Acme project missed its final submission deadline yesterday. I’m concerned about our relationship with this client. Let’s diagnose what happened and create a recovery plan.” |
| “You never listen to my feedback.” | “You are arrogant, stubborn, and unteachable.” | “When I shared feedback on the proposal last week, I didn’t see the suggested changes in the final version. It’s important to me that we’re on the same page. Can you share your thoughts on the feedback?” |
| “I feel like you’re not committed to this team.” | “You are not a team player and I don’t trust you.” | “I’ve observed that you’ve been working remotely on days the rest of the team is in the office and have passed on the last two team-building events. Your participation is really valuable to us. I’d like to understand your perspective on team collaboration.” |
Conclusion: My Final Judgment
I often think back to that failed project, the one that started this whole journey.
Armed with the framework I have now, I see a completely different path I could have taken.
Instead of marching into that room like a prosecutor with a sealed indictment, I would have entered as a diagnostician.
I would have scheduled a conversation, not a presentation.
I would have laid out the data—the budget, the timeline, the client feedback—as the “presenting symptoms.” I would have said, “This is the information we have.
It’s indicating a problem.
I don’t have all the answers, but I’m here to work with you to figure out the root cause and build a treatment plan.”
I would have asked them for their differential diagnosis: “What are the obstacles you’re facing? Where are the communication breakdowns? What resources do you need that you don’t have?” I would have listened, not to find fault, but to gather the crucial data only they possessed.
We would have left that meeting not as a judge and defendants, but as a unified medical team with a shared understanding of the illness and a collaborative plan to restore the project to health.
This journey has fundamentally transformed my professional practice and my personal relationships.
My final judgment on this matter is this: the single greatest source of conflict and failure in our interactions is the confusion of information with indictment.
We are all, by default, prosecutors, quick to judge and eager to deliver a verdict.
But we have the capacity to be physicians, dedicated to the patient, collaborative search for truth and healing.
The choice is ours in every conversation we have.
It is the choice between seeking to be right and seeking to be effective.
It is the choice between fixing blame and fixing the problem.
By consciously choosing the path of the ethical prosecutor and the patient-centered physician—by committing to the rigorous practice of communicating with information, not indictment—we can move from a world of reflexive defensiveness and endless conflict to one of clarity, collaboration, and profound progress.
The verdict is in, and the power to change it lies with each of us.
Works cited
- Federal Indictments: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions – Burnham & Gorokhov, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.burnhamgorokhov.com/criminal-defense-resources/federal-criminal-process/federal-indictments-faqs
- What’s the Difference Between a Criminal Indictment, a Criminal Information, and a Criminal Complaint? – MoloLamken LLP, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.mololamken.com/knowledge-Whats-the-Difference-Between-a-Criminal-Indictment-a-Criminal-Information-and-a-Criminal-Complaint
- 205. When an Indictment is Required | United States Department of Justice, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-205-when-indictment-required
- grand jury | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/grand_jury
- true bill | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/true_bill
- U.S. Attorneys | Charging | United States Department of Justice, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging
- information | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute – Law.Cornell.Edu, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/information
- 201. Indictment And Informations | United States Department of Justice, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-201-indictment-and-informations
- 214. Drafting Indictments and Informations | United States Department of Justice, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-214-drafting-indictments-and-informations
- www.justice.gov, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-214-drafting-indictments-and-informations#:~:text=The%20indictment%20or%20the%20information,not%20necessary%20to%20such%20statement.
- www.law.cornell.edu, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_7#:~:text=The%20indictment%20or%20information%20must,a%20formal%20introduction%20or%20conclusion.
- 206. When an Information May be Used | United States Department of Justice, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-206-when-information-may-be-used
- Rule 7. The Indictment and the Information | Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | US Law, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_7
- What Is Defensiveness and How It Becomes A Vicious Cycle – Healthy Love & Money, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.healthyloveandmoney.com/blog/what-is-defensiveness-and-how-it-becomes-a-vicious-cycle
- What Is Defensiveness? – Verywell Mind, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-defensiveness-5115075
- How It Harms Relationships & How to Stop Being Defensive – Choosing Therapy, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.choosingtherapy.com/defensiveness/
- Framing effect – The Decision Lab, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/framing-effect
- Framing effect (psychology) – Wikipedia, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology)
- Context and Subtext in Dialogue: Creating Layered Speech – NN …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://nownovel.com/subtext-context-dialogue/
- Subtext | Definition, Meaning & Examples – QuillBot, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://quillbot.com/blog/rhetoric/subtext/
- The Language Classroom – Reading Between the Lines: Understanding Subtext in Communication – Day Translations, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.daytranslations.com/blog/the-language-classroom-reading-between-the-lines-understanding-subtext-in-communication/
- Communication: Direct Accusation vs Problem Identification – The Online Therapist, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://theonlinetherapist.blog/communication-direct-accusation-vs-problem-identification/
- How to Use I-Statements Effectively and Accurately — The …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://thecounselinghub.com/news/mkniuct0phmijh51wz0qb4ksstgfpq
- Should I Explain the Thing to the Lady? How (Mis)communication Theories can Explain Acts and Accusations of Mansplaining, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://ruts-journal.ruhosting.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Submission-1_Astrid_final_withlayout.pdf
- Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment Cases | People’s Law Office, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://peopleslawoffice.com/issues-and-cases/wrongful-conviction/
- The Torture of Darrell Cannon-A Case the City of Chicago Cannot Wint – People’s Law Office, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://peopleslawoffice.com/darrell-cannon-civil-rights-lawsui/
- How Survivors of Jon Burge’s Police Torture Won Reparations in …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/10/30/payback
- The Torture Machine: Racism and Police Violence in Chicago – Digital Commons@DePaul, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=jsj
- Torture without Torturers : Violence and Racialization in Black Chicago | Current Anthropology: Vol 61, No S21, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/705574
- The Long Path to Reparations for the Survivors of Chicago Police Torture – Scholarly Commons, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=njlsp
- SPJ’s Code of Ethics | Society of Professional Journalists, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.spj.org/spj-code-of-ethics/
- SPJ Code of Ethics, accessed on August 10, 2025, http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jour/spj/SPJcode.html
- 7.5: Professional Codes of Ethics – Social Sci LibreTexts, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Communication/Journalism_and_Mass_Communication/The_American_Journalism_Handbook_-_Concepts_Issues_and_Skills_(Zamith)/07%3A_Journalism_Law_and_Ethics/7.05%3A_Professional_Codes_of_Ethics
- SEEK TRUTH AND REPORT IT MINIMIZE HARM ACT INDEPENDENTLY BE ACCOUNTABLE AND TRANSPARENT PREAMBLE – Society of Professional Journalists, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf
- SEEK TRUTH AND REPORT IT MINIMIZE HARM ACT INDEPENDENTLY BE ACCOUNTABLE PREAMBLE – Society of Professional Journalists, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.spj.org/pdf/ethicscode.pdf
- Balancing public interest and sensationalism | Intro to Journalism …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/introduction-journalism/unit-3/balancing-public-interest-sensationalism/study-guide/1CqkYBM4lZu9XTH4
- Sensationalism – Wikipedia, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism
- Media coverage of court hearings and trials – Northwestern District Attorney |, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.northwesternda.org/contact/news/media-coverage-court-hearings-and-trials
- Trial by Media: Arguing Cases in the Court of Public Opinion – HeinOnline, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/cjust19§ion=29
- Trial by media: politics, policy and public opinion, the case of the ACT, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CICrimJust/1998/3.pdf
- Delivering negative feedback to employees can be a positive – COSE, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://cose.org/blog/cose-resources/delivering-negative-feedback-to-employees-can-be-a-positive/
- 4 Companies Winning with Feedback in the Workplace – Culture Partners, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://culturepartners.com/insights/companies-that-understand-importance-of-feedback-in-the-workplace/
- Patient-Centered Communication: Basic Skills – AAFP, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2017/0101/p29.html
- Patient-centred communication: a sophisticated procedure | BMJ Quality & Safety, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/20/10/823
- The Diagnostic Process – Improving Diagnosis in Health Care – NCBI Bookshelf, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK338593/
- Clinical Diagnosis vs Medical Diagnosis: Understanding the Key Differences – Ezra, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://ezra.com/blog/clinical-diagnosis-vs-medical-diagnosis-understanding-the-key-differences
- Clinical and Diagnostic Reasoning | Department of Internal Medicine, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://internalmedicine.medicine.uiowa.edu/master-clinician-program/master-clinician-information-students/clinical-and-diagnostic-reasoning
- Patient-Centered Communication and Why It Matters – Demandforce, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.demandforce.com/patient-centered-communication-and-why-it-matters/
- Patient-Centered Communication – PMC, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5874557/
- How to Give Negative Feedback in a Positive Way (+ Examples), accessed on August 10, 2025, https://positivepsychology.com/negative-feedback/
- Medical diagnosis – Wikipedia, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_diagnosis
- Principles of diagnostic reasoning – The Pharmaceutical Journal, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/ld/principles-of-diagnostic-reasoning
- Tips for Giving Negative Feedback Across Your Organization – HSI, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://hsi.com/blog/tips-for-giving-negative-feedback-across-your-organization
- A guide to patient-centered communication – Dovetail, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://dovetail.com/patient-experience/patient-communication/
- How to practice person‐centred care: A conceptual framework – PMC, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5867327/
- Patient-Centered Care – Mayo Clinic, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.mayoclinic.org/patient-centered-care
