Sorry. Been busy doing my judicial job.
One the first issue, of the judge questioning Zimmerman about testifying...First the jury was not present. This was done outside the presence of the jury, as many procedural issues are. The reason is that it allows for a discussion, on the record, without concern that anything said can wrongfully influence the jury. So, don't worry about the judge putting on a show here for the jury. Second, some jurisdictions actually require questioning along these lines. Here in Ohio, before a defendant can testify, the judge is required to question the defendant to make sure the defendant understands his right to remain silent, and that choosing to testify means a complete waiver of that right. I've read some appeals which have ruled that a judge should have inquired, as she did here, to make sure that the defendant understands not only his right to remain silent, but also his right to testify. Now, West was just dumb here. He objected the first time. Overruled. Okay, he made his record for appeal on the issue, and the judge overruled him. Second objection, the judge got the point, but again overruled. Third objection in less than two minutes, and you're just pissing off the judge. Not a good move for your client. And, like in A Few Good Men, did he think that strenuously objecting a third time was going to change the judge's mind when it didn't work the first two times 30 seconds ago? Her questions were not out of line. She's asking about time issues, scheduling issues. She's not asking him if he's guilty or anything. Bad move by West.
On the second issue. Again, I don't know Florida law, and I'm too busy right now to research it all, but manslaughter may be a "lesser included offense" to the Murder charge. How it works is the higher offense includes all of the same elements as the lower offense, a jury can choose the lower offense in place of the higher offense. the reason I think this is the case here is that the judge tossed the idea of the other manslaughter charge, because it had the additional element of "child abuse," which was never alleged before the prosecutor threw it out today. Again, nothing remarkable about including it...except that it was the prosecution that asked. In 18 years, I don't think I've ever seen a prosecutor at the close of all evidence suddenly ask for instructions on a lesser included. that would mean they know they missed swinging for the fence, so they're hoping for anything.