I do not see the judge as threatened by the DT, or anyone for that matter. The man has a quick mind, yet instances where he needs to consider issues before ruling, he takes the time to do just that. Judge Perry does not typically go off half-cocked.
I agree with those who say the judge is tougher on the SA than on the DT. It is obvious that he is, but the SA are an experienced bunch and their goal is to get the inmate convicted and sentenced to death. And if they succeed in doing that, the judge does not want it overturned.
I have only one gripe with Judge Perry, and it may actually be ignorance on my part: During jury selection, the state wanted to use a strike and JB objected, accusing the state of wanting the juror out due to her race. The judge ruled in JB's favor and the juror stayed, and was then protected from ever being stricken. I do not understand that ruling at all. There was no evidence the state wanted that PT out due to race and my understanding of the strikes was that they could be used to strike a potential juror for no specific reason...meaning they did not have to give a reason for their strike.
So, as I sit here wallowing in my own ignorance, I do not understand why the state could not strike that juror at that point or any time during the selection process, given they had plenty of strikes remaining to be used.
Until someone can explain to me why the state was not allowed to use a strike on that PT, I will always see that situation as a bias against the state on the part of Judge Perry. I guess it's true what they say, nobody's perfect; but in a criminal case as important as this, it is imperative that he who makes the rulings be fair and impartial.