Yes, the judge is charged with issuing instructions as to the applicable law to the jury from a list of instructions submitted from both sides. He can pick and choose. But I understand, in a jury trial, jury instructions are the bases for an appeal, whereas little else is. From this judge's behavior, I'd say that appeal is likely.
Ad quaestiones facti non respondent judices; ad quaestiones legis non respondent juratores.
The judges do not answer to questions of fact; the jury do not answer to questions of law.
De jure judices, de facto juratores, respondent.
The judges answer to the law, the jury to the facts.
I know. But jury nullification is still a real thing. Juries can aquit in spite of the instruction the judge gives them, and, if enough juries aquit, the law is de facto nullified.
But jury nullification is still a real thing. Juries can aquit in spite of the instruction the judge gives them, and, if enough juries aquit, the law is de facto nullified. You are absolutely correct about this -- and thank God for it! However, many (if not all) jurors may not know this, since the judge will not inform them of this option during his instructions. It's a rigged game where the State has all the advantages, save for hopefully an "enlightened" jury.