In People v. Sturm (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1218, throughout the defendant's penalty phase, the trial court repeatedly interjected comments that effectively undermined the defense's theory of the case. For example, the trial court stated that "it was a 'gimme' that defendant had premeditated the murders despite knowing from the first penalty phase trial that defendant's lack of premeditation was a central piece of defendant's case in mitigation"; made sarcastic remarks about defense expert witnesses and their qualifications; and "commented on defense counsel's training, blaming defense counsel for the length of the penalty phase trial, and specifically pointing out to the jury that he had ruled against defense counsel '99 times out of 100.'" (Id. at p. 1244.)