True, but having done more than a few jury trials in my time, there are some things that are timelessly true. First, a jury always begins by viewing both counsel in the case with suspicion, and your job is to win them over. Conversely, a jury always holds the judge in very high regard. They usually see the judge as an impartial administrator of the law, and look to him or her for signals on how they should interpret what is going on. When a judge admonishes counsel in front of a jury the way that is happening here, it typically has a very adverse impact on that counsel's credibility and on his case.
All that said, I went to a very interesting seminar once sponsored by the local bar association. They found a civil case -- a hit from behind with neck injuries car accident -- which had settled on the eve of trial and brought the attorneys, the parties, the witnesses, and experts in to try the case on a Saturday in the courtroom where the real trial had been scheduled, and before the judge originally assigned to the case. They used a volunteer jury pool drawn from the community, only for this purpose they empaneled four separate juries. The four juries heard the entire case from start to finish, just as it would have been tried had it not settled. At the end the juries retired separately, and after some deliberation, returned with four different verdicts. One found for the defendant, another awarded the plaintiff a huge amount, another awarded token damages to the plaintiff, and another came back with a modest award for the plaintiff. You might conclude that it's all in picking a jury, and there is a great deal of truth in that. For instance, the jury that came back for the defendant was composed mostly of young women, and the defendant was a handsome young man who presented well.
“””When a judge admonishes counsel in front of a jury the way that is happening here””””
The jury was not present when the judge gave the prosecutor an ass kicking.