That's like saying, "That escaped felon tried to shoot you during a traffic stop, but he was a lousy shot and missed, no harm no foul."
Even the APPEARANCE of impropriety in the courts creates mistrust and disrespect for the law.
Hear that faint scratching sound in the distance? That's the attorneys for everybody ever convicted in her court furiously taking notes in preparation for their appeals.
No, that's not what I'm saying. You're making this out to be a lot more than it is. While the judge may have made an error in the means of communication, the communication itself was really quite routine because judges ask stuff like that during trials all the time. You all seem to think this criminal justice "system" should have these steel-clad rigid rules and the penitentiary awaits those who dare to cross any boundary. Reality is, it's just not like that. Yes, laws and certain rules must be upheld. No doubt. But you're making like a judge asking a question thru the DA is a capital offense and clearly, it's no such thing. If you're going to play this game, you have to parse the situation...
1. Judge basically asks a question thru the DA by giving the DA the question. Is it OK? Probably. Judges can ask questions.
2. Judge texts instead of calling attorneys to a sidebar. Is it OK? No. It's lazy and looks bad.
3. Did it prejudice the jury? No, they acquitted him.
Now - name a law that was broken. I'll answer myself: there isn't one.
Maybe a procedural error? Probably. Judges aren't supposed to have improper contacts with attorneys on either side. There's no law against that, though. Here, improper is in the eye of the beholder. The judge wanted a question asked. She clearly went about it the wrong way. She didn't promise to convict the defendant no matter what. There's a difference. The defendant was not convicted wrongly because of the judge's behavior - therefore, "no harm, no foul."
So the bottom line is, the judge made herself look bad. She "may" have violated a procedure, but we don't send people to jail for that. There would have been a "sanction" of some sort, such as a written reprimand, but she chose to resign and that ends the case.
They also won't "revisit" each and every case this judge ever tried, because conduct in the current case has no bearing on previous ones, unless there's proof positive that this conduct occurred in every other case.
Don't go thinking in absolutes, guys. That's not how it works.