She has numerous options to deal with the problem without tossing the case. But who appointed her gives people an idea of her ideological background, and why she might overreact, let politics influence her actions, or make a stupid decision based on utopian foolishness. We'll see what she actually does.
When she specifically (and correctly) tells the prosecution not to coach witnesses, and then the prosecution willfully does exactly that, her ideology is not the issue (IMHO). I think who appointed her to the bench is, in this case, a convenient dodge for accepting the reality that the prosecution royally screwed up.
The guy is still guilty. Nothing can or will change that.