tl;dr: you’re wrong and you made a terrible assumption.

First, I did not point to this as an example of the judge favoring the defense. You made an unfounded assumption. I merely stated that it was “WILD” (read: wacky).

Second, multiple media outlets confirmed that the judge gave the state 15-20 minutes to secure an expert’s testimony before the jury was allowed to return and hear oral arguments. (The NY Times, The Verge, Mashable, and Arstecnica.com, 9to5Mac.com, Yahoo Finance, Esquire.com, should i continue?.) I trust their collective reporting over your account of how long the state had. You can also rewatch yourself, starting at 5 hour, 2 minute mark.

Third, the state’s expert testified on the video-editing software program commonly used in crime labs. The judge, based on the defense’s erroneous claim, then demanded that that expert prove that the ordinary pinch-to-zoom feature doesn’t interpolate pixels or “enhance” the image. (pinch-to-zoom does not radically transform an image or video from its “virginal” state; rather, it enlarges that area of the photo/video/screen). So, your wrong, the expert did know what they were talking about—they just didn’t know how to disprove such a laughable claim on the spot.

Fourth, the judge allowed this in the evidence the following day. I was only talking about that one exchange that occurred the day before.