If the jury was not present when she asked, she wasn't out of order. There have been criminal cases where a defendant didn't testify, was convicted, and then argued on appeal that "my lawyer didn't let me testify." So it's not uncommon for the trial judge to ask the defendant personally if he wants to testify, to preclude that kind of later argument.
So it’s not uncommon for the trial judge to ask the defendant personally if he wants to testify, to preclude that kind of later argument.
I thought the Jury was present. If the jury was present it would have been a different story.
Absolutely correct. Some states it is mandatory. Judge must ask(without jury present) in either situation. If the Def. is going to testify the Judge must ask if they have made the decision without coercion.
I keep hearing that, and I saw when she asked him with the jury absent. I understand that's SOP. What I can't get an answer to from the armchair lawyers that could watch the stream (I couldn't) was, what about the first time she asked him? She asked Zimmerman twice, and the first time the Defense was furious. Since West was in the middle of questioning a witness, I think that was in front of the Jury and therefore improper.
But I don't know because the great minds are silent when I ask.
It does not matter whether the Jury saw the Judge's abuse or not, the American People saw it on TV
This case is no longer about George Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence, nor is it a local issue, and it is being tried in the court of public opinion over the television screen.