Does anyone have a case that says something to the effect that a judge hearing evidence is able to filter out objectional material unlike a jury? In other words...is there a different level of harm in say improper argument when a judge hears the evidence vs a jury?

Check out Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 79, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) -- "In a bench trial, the judge often will learn the substance of the evidence before he can rule on the motion to suppress. The judge is presumed to disregard the inadmissible evidence if the court is called on to decide the merits of the case. In essence, the judge assumes dual roles: He acts as a judge in ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and he acts as a juror in weighing the credibility of the evidence."

It's not an absolute exception (see Gipson v. State, 844 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), but it can have an effect on your harm analysis.