Thanks for the advice. I downloaded the Potplayer and was able to hear the entire Unger video. It's pretty dry until about 3:45 when Unger becomes downright waspish about the way his case has fallen apart. I notice that the judge refers to him as Mister Unger instead of as Doctor.
As the video comes to its end the judge is about to quote from Justice Black in the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Illinois v. Wm. Allen (1970) 397 US 337 at 346-347, 25 L.Ed.2d 353, 90 S.Ct 1057 (a case centering on whether a pro se defendant can be removed from the courtroom because of his disruptive behavior, even though this removes him from the very trial he is conducting):
It is not pleasant to hold that the respondent Allen was properly banished from the court for a part of his own trial. But our courts, palladiums of liberty as they are, cannot be treated disrespectfully with impunity. Nor can the accused be permitted by his disruptive conduct indefinitely to avoid being tried on the charges brought against him. It would degrade our country and our judicial system to permit our courts to be bullied, insulted, and humiliated and their orderly progress thwarted and obstructed by defendants brought before them charged with crimes. As guardians of the public welfare, our state and federal judicial systems strive to administer equal justice to the rich and the poor, the good and the bad, the native and foreign born of every race, nationality, and religion. Being manned by humans, the courts are not perfect and are bound to make some errors. But, if our courts are to remain what the Founders intended, the citadels of justice, their proceedings cannot and must not be infected with the sort of scurrilous, abusive language and conduct paraded before the Illinois trial judge in this case. The record shows that the Illinois judge at all times conducted himself with that dignity, decorum, and patience that befit a judge. Even in holding that the trial judge had erred, the Court of Appeals praised his "commendable patience under severe provocation."
We do not hold that removing this defendant from his own trial was the only way the Illinois judge could have constitutionally solved the problem he had. We do hold, however, that there is nothing whatever in this record to show that the judge did not act completely within his discretion. Deplorable as it is to remove a man from his own trial, even for a short time, we hold that the judge did not commit legal error in doing what he did.