1. Establish a prospective juror's intent & ability to follow directions. Using an example involving a question which will not be asked maintains neutrality (as opposed to asking a likely question and eliciting answers before their proper time).
2. Further document the judge's refusal to permit jurors to consider relevant plain-language supreme law which would nullify city law and thus excuse the defendant; document the judge insisting that state & federal constitutions do not apply (thus setting the trial up not only for overturning the verdict on appeal, but also for impeachment and removal of the judge).
3. Antagonize a judge who is making it clear that he is the law.
Remember: Stanely KNEW he would be convicted, and needed to gather certain evidence that the court was acting with gross negligence and arrogance, so he would be prepared for appeals.
Did Stanley's lawyer make any effort to establish either of the following two matters of fact:
An appeal following conviction requires a demonstration not only that the trial court procedures were improper, but also that such impropriety may have changed the outcome of the case. Since Court precedent requires establishing one of the above facts in order to raise a constitutional defense, if he didn't try to do so he could not have successfully raised such a defense even had the judge not interfered.
Please note that in most cases neither of the above matters of fact should be difficult to demonstrate. The former, alas, is severely compromised by Stanley's deliberate actions in getting arrested; he carried the pistol not to defend himself, but rather to get himself arrested. His manner at that time may cost him dearly.
Still, if he made any effort to raise the above-mentioned facts he should have reasonable chances on appeal; if he attempted to assert both facts and was blocked on both, he would have grounds for appeal in federal as well as state court. Otherwise, his options may be limitted.
BTW, one argument for appeal in federal court might be found in the USC provision that all states are to provide their citizens with a republican form of government. One could argue that a republican form of government requires the state's constitution to be binding on all political entities within the state except with regard to issues where it explicitly is not. If the politicians in Denver can render Colorado's constitution irrelevant within their domain, Colorado is not providing people in Denver with a republican form of government as the U.S. Constitution demands that they must.