One of my district judges still insists upon putting the Geesa reasonable doubt definition in the charge in spite of Paulson. My folks strenuously oppose it but to no avail. Any ideas on what my legal options are, if any, to put a stop to this? He is of the opinion that Paulson is "bad law." In essence, he knows what the law is but he just chooses to ignore it. I've considered mandamus but I'm not sure about how to get a case in a posture to proceed with that option. Also, the Courts of Appeals are split on whether the inclusion of the Geesa definition is reversible error without an agreement to put it in the charge. Help!

A judge that deliberately violates the law has shown that he is not willing to follow his/her oath. You could file a motion to recuse the judge for prejudging an issue (contrary to established law). You also could file a grievance.

Mandamus would be difficult in midtrial, but you could do a writ of prohibition and have it ready to file before the case is argued.