I wanted to address Issodhos's original query, as to what is up with the judge. I think firm would be an appropriate term. Here's what I think was going on, and I don't think there was any bias involved: She is trying to keep the trial on course, and the defense attorneys were delaying disclosure of their intent. She was just trying to impress upon them and Zimmerman that she was in charge, and that they could not delay forever making a decision. She was not wrong in addressing Zimmerman directly, as it was outside of the jury's hearing, and there are some times where the court, legitimately, wants to hear directly from the defendant. The defense attorneys can object, but it was not improper, and certainly will not be an (legitimate) issue on appeal. She was very careful to emphasize that he had the right to testify or not, but she needed to know whether the trial was going to go into the next week or not. Remember, there is a sequestered jury. It was all about administering the court proceedings, not about the substance of the trial.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich