Wow, that judge would not stop interrupting the lawyer. Is that typical?
I was once a witness to a traffic accident, and had to go to court. The judge asked the defendant (whose inattention caused the accident) what happened, and his story wound up "and so the other guy was shaken up but not injured". The judge then gave a several minute harangue over his presumption in knowing what happened to the other guy.
Finally he asks the guy "how do you KNOW that he wasn't injured?". The guy replies, "I went to see him to apologize, and he TOLD ME that he wasn't injured."
Of course, the "told me" what second-hand so probably not admissible, but it sure didn't warrant the rant that the judge gave him.
Not always the case I'm sure but it has always made me rethink the idea of a Judge as an 'impartial' adjucator
The judge in the elevator with me quickly reached over me and pressed the "Door Close" button. This closed the doors, preventing the waiting people from getting on and the car continued to the next floor where he and I got off.
I'm not terribly surprised, given that judges are pretty used to being referred to (ridiculously enough) as "Your Honor", are they not? Or is that TV shit?
Also, hearsay can be admissible. In this case the "told me that he wasn't injured" would be allowed because statements by someone going against their own interest are allowed.
But you are right in that he probably should have been prepared for this as well. Its not unthinkable that judges would be adversarial to this sort of defense/line of thinking.