He objected many times saying he didn’t understand. And several times he wouldn’t answer when asked if he understood that he would lose his right to testify etc. so the judge determined no answer meant no. Don’t know if that can be used for appeal. Might be why she would ask him over and over again. If he gets an appeal he should not be allowed to defend himself again. This trail was a sh— show.
No worries there. I watched most of the trial and know this: he used a variety of tactics repeatedly to delay, obstruct and interrupt the proceedings. He did not start using the “I don’t understand” line until the last day of trial and it was painfully obviously just a new tactic to create grounds for appeal. I mean, he was using “I don’t understand” to things he was told that were simple English declarative sentences with no jargon.
As to deeming his refusal to answer as a no, that is also a non-issue. She told him over and over and over again that his failure to answer her questions (are you calling a witness, do you intend to testify, do you agree with the jury instructions) would be regarded as a negative response.
I went back and forth between thinking the judge was way too patient, soft spoken and actually kind to this piece of filth. In the end, she was just giving him enough rope to hang himself by appearing before the jury as a rude, obnoxious jerk.