I don't find it beyond the scope of direct. It's appropriate cross-examination. It's overruled on that basis. We're getting argumentative only because I think the witness and counsel are talking over each other. Each of you let the other finish before you start talking.
The statement was not given by a judge. 
This is exactly what a judge would say in a courtroom proceeding, referring to witness and counsel, it cannot be anyone else.
( z1 state :polarity - :ARG0 ( z2 person :ARG0-of ( z3 judge ) ) )