Better get him checked out...

I should probably bookmark this one, add it to the list.

if the state has not actually provided enough evidence to support a guilty verdict; but this seems to require a defense motion, and the proper time for the motion appears to be the moment the prosecution ends its case

So apparently the defense, if it plans to make such a motion, should not begin presenting its own case until such motion has been denied; and the judge certainly ought not be directing a verdict of acquittal in the midst of jury deliberations

Note that also the issue is not the judge's opinion regarding the defendant's guilt but rather whether, as a matter of law, the state has provided evidence that could support a guilty verdict: in fact, the judge's belief here that he has been communicating with "God" have no place in our legal system

The judge would properly be removed from the bench

for a directed verdict of not guilty on both counts after the state rested its case-in-chief.

"If he'd granted my motion, she would have been acquitted, case over and there would not have been any judicial misconduct," she said. "Once it was in the hands of the jury, he can't intervene while they're deliberating" ...

https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Judge-facing-complaints-over-trying-to-sway-jury-12512826.php

of the refrain a theist gives when told s/he cannot prove god exists: "You can't prove he doesn't!"

So here we are, with a judge who says god told him something, and the refrain perfectly illustrates the problem. "You can't prove he didn't!"

Which is it?

Maybe he's a true Christian and God really did tell him that, and the jury got it wrong and convicted an innocent person.

I don't think that's very likely, though.

Anyone who says god spoke to them COULD be right.