Chief Judge Belvin Perry is one of the most respected judges in the United States. Whatever he does, it is within the law or as the law requires it. As a judge he cannot let his personal opinion about anything that goes on in the courtroom to interfere with his actions.
I see lots of complaints about Judge Perry should have done this, or should have done that, but as I read the various legal summaries that fellow judges or lawyers have written, not one has written any negative comments about Judge Perry or how he ran his courtroom. It is one thing for him to sentence a woman who stood up and disrupted the courtroom, and quite another for a lawyer to comfort OCA - as much as it grated me. Both decisions fit within the laws available for him to base his decisions.
I saw nothing in any of HHJP's actions that indicated he showed any preference to OCA as a defendant, in fact to my eyes, quite the opposite. To the best of my knowledge, his job is to keep to the laws that guide the court and get a trial through from beginning to end. I think he did a fine job - much better than anyone else could have done. I don't get the comparison between the Conrad Murray trial and OCA's trial - Murrays trial was a mini trial compared to the mountain of evidence in the Anthony trial and the number of players involved.
For those who complain about HHJP, maybe it would be more fair to actually provide some points of law that indicate HHJP should have acted differently. I know we are unhappy about the verdict, but let's place the blame squarely on the shoulders of those it belongs to - the jury. And how about us backing off with this amount of disrespect for one of the finest judges Florida has ever seen. All IMO of course.