Hey, this is Trey. Thank you for joining us for another Thursday edition as we creep closer and closer and closer to

I guess Labor Day and the unofficial start to autumn or fall. Do you know what I don't know where Langston and you may?

What's that? People call it fall and some people call it autumn. What is the difference and why would you use one over the other?

You know, I don't know. I know poetically it sounds better to say autumn, but I use both so I don't know the actual reason.

I know neither and I know girls name autumn, but I don't know when the girls name fall or guys name fall for that matter.

That's true. I mean, there always could be somebody named that, but I haven't met them yet.

No, I know people name summer.

But in any event, not to digress, it's wonderful to hear your voice and I cannot wait to hear what is on the minds of the people that are kind enough to listen to your podcast.

Well, thank you for having me and I always look forward to hearing what's on people's minds. We have another great set of thoughtful questions this week.

So I guess we'll go ahead and get started. We'll start with a legal question from Chris in Missouri.

He writes, in ongoing trials, the jury is always admonished not to read, watch or talk about anything to do with the case outside of the courtroom.

Does this apply to the judge as well? Has this ever been an issue?

Chris, that is a great question and it requires not my normal amount of backing up, but a little bit because the answer to your question technically is it depends.

That's the real answer to your question is it depends the practical answer to your question is judges are different.

So I'll tell you what I mean by that, juries are finders of fact.

Okay, that's what juries do. They find the fact was the light red or green was the person on trial.

Is that really the same person in the surveillance video that robbed the seven of them? They decide facts. Was it raining? Who was speeding?

And so you want that decision to only come from the evidence that is in front of you.

Now that doesn't mean that's all the evidence that there is. I mean, let's assume it's a speeding case.

Let's assume that someone is on trial. Let's pick somebody that I like to put on trial. John Ratcliffe.

John Ratcliffe is on trial for speeding. All right. So he's presumed innocent here on the jury.

It is highly relevant that he has 20 prior convictions for speeding. Don't you think?

...