I don't know. Do you have some examples of a no-nonsense judge?
BTW, I'm on the Judge's side, in a sense. She is stopping some of the endless and pointless arguing by making decisions. Even If I think they are wrong.
This whole trial is such a farcical affair, just like the other famous live trials.
The powers that be laugh at us watching the trial as much as the Emperors of Rome laughed as they watched the peons in the stands witnessing the slaughter of Christians by lions.
I can see your point and I do agree. After all jury instructions are supposed to instruct the jury how to apply the law to the facts of the case. So when West argued that there should be a section in the jury instruction about how following someone is not illegal I would think is improper.
Jury instructions apply the statutes. Not what is NOT in them. And I think she did make a valid point that the defense can argue non-illegality of following someone in their closing arguments.
>>>The powers that be laugh at us watching the trial as much as the Emperors of Rome laughed as they watched the peons in the stands witnessing the slaughter of Christians by lions.<<<
Should be repeated over and over and over. Excellent visual.