The judge clearly wants Zimmerman to fry - as do most followers of this nationally sensationalized case.
A bit of knowledge of criminal procedure would come in handy. Pretty much any defendant convicted of a crime of this nature will, at some point in their incarceration, raise the appeal strategy of poor legal advice which led to poor decisions by the defendant which led to the conviction.
Indeed, in this case I would bet that defendant and his attorneys already have explored that option in deciding whether he should or should not testify.
1. don't testify and don't risk being cross-examined; if you are acquited all is great with the world
2. if you don't testify and are convicted, we will appeal on every grounds we can think of and when those are all exhausted, you can fire us and hire a new attorney who will argue we did not properly advise you on this point and you therefore should get a new trial.
the trial judge is pretty sharp and her questions, and insistence on talking directly to the defendant and NOT his attorneys will eliminate or seriously diminsh that appeal strategy. Such inquiries from the trial judge are in fact rather common in court rooms with competent and well informed judges.
Defendant's attorneys are objecting PRECISELY BECAUSE they want to preserve the inadequate advice of counsel claim down the road. The "testiness" is ALL directed on the attorney who keeps asserting the right (non-existant) to tell the judge how to run the trial.
