Hey, this is Trey. Thank you for joining us for a Thursday edition of our podcast. We're very grateful for all the questions that you send us, which are thought-provoking and timely and all the other synonyms that would go with both of those. So keep them coming. They are fun. Well, they're fun for us. We hope they're fun for you

as well. So with that, we will call on the keeper of the questions. Well, hey, Trey, I agree. It's

always great to hear what people are thinking and the questions they have, and of course,

your answer as well we've got

some great ones today you ready to get started I hope so all right let's do it we'll

start with Gerald who actually writes about the judge for the Charlie Kirk

trial so he writes in a case this important and to make sure there are no

judicial errors why wouldn't a judge with more experience be assigned?

And how are the judges assigned to these types of cases?

Well, Gerald, those are great questions.

This particular judge is new to the bench.

You are correct.

But he is not new to the courtroom.

He's been in the courtroom for decades. Different states assign judges in different ways, and that's true for, I don't want to say,

ordinary murder cases, because there's no such thing as an ordinary murder case, but non-capital murder cases.

They have a certain way of assigning judges.

Some are random.

I can tell you the federal system, the judges are randomly selected.

Some are assigned by what's called a chief administrative judge, and some,

particularly death penalty cases in South Carolina, are assigned by the Supreme Court. And you're

correct. True death penalty cases are challenging, and the goal of the defense attorney,

let's not make any mistake, and let's just call this one like we see it, the goal of the defense attorney, let's not make any mistake and let's just call this one like we see it.

...