Re: Pissing the Judge off over a number of weeks
I doubt this tactic works in any case where the judge is the one deciding the trial. US, UK or anywhere else. Courtroom theatrics, emotional appeals and trying to obscure with ludicrous detail are for confusing juries.
And even there, from my limited experience of 3 trials on a jury, the best defence barrister was quite clear and concise. He kept it simple, didn't try to overwhelm us with crap by pointlessly questioning witnesses - and was the only barrister to give us a proper speech when summing up the defence case at the end.
Though that might just be because there wasn't enough evidence against his client, whereas the other two were found guilty - and so chucking about pointless detail was all that was left for the barristers to do, after failing to persuade their clients to plead guilty?
Given the judge is an ex-barrister, who has seen all the written evidence (something a jury don't get) - he's already going to know a lot of the questions to expect. So he's also likely to have a good idea of what's pointless detail and what matters.
Equally though, lots of questions answered by the witness does give them a chance to point out any inconsistencies in his evidence. If there actually are any.