Giving the judge the benefit of a doubt (which she doesn’t deserve, but just as an academic exercise) I wonder if she is intentionally throwing mistakes into the trial that will guarantee a reversal on appeal of Zimmerman is convicted.
The badgering about whether he would or would not take the stand is sufficient, in itself, to taint any guilty verdict that is handed down.
I have wondered the same thing-- a little insurance in case the jury returns guilty.
I'm grasping at straws at this point, but I can't believe a public servant--regardless how corrupt-- could be so aberrant in public.