Whether the trial court erroneously used prejudicial language suggesting defendant's guilt during jury instructions and whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to these errors and alleged racial threats

Whether the trial court errored by erroneously, and constantly using the wrong phrase, saying "Defendant Guilt/' Eight times throughout the preliminary jury instructions, and the trial court errored by erroneously, and constantly using the wrong phrase, saying "Defendant Guilty" Twelve times throughout the final charge to the jury? II Whether the trial court errored by racially threatening, the defense counsel saying "Just make sure you're, blood is circulating Mr. Shaffer", after that racial threat defense counsel Mr. Shaffer rests? Ill Whether the trial court was a government interference, with the jury trial by applying the 2013, Title 225, Pa, Code Rule of Evidence, 403; Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Wast of Time Other Reason, (hereto as Pa. R.E. 403)? IV Whether defense counsel was ineffective at jury trial on December 16, 2015, by failing to object on the record preserving, a clam of error, for potential appeal, or retrial, and argue constitutional violation about the trial court's erroneously, and constantly using the wrong phrase, saying "Defendant Guilty" Eight times throughout the preliminary jury instructions, and the trial court's error by erroneously, and constantly using the wrong phrase, saying "Defendant Guilty" Twelve times throughout the final charge to the jury? V Whether defense counsel was ineffective at jury trial on December 16, 2015, by failing to object on the record preserving a clam of error, constitutional violation for potential appeal, or retrial, and argue constitutional violation about the trial court threatening him saying, "Just make sure you're, blood is circulating Mr. Shaffer"? Whether defense counsel was ineffective at jury trial on December 16, 2015, by failing to object on the record preserving a clam of error, constitutional violation for potential appeal, or retrial, and argue constitutional violation about the government interference, with the jury trial by applying the unconstitutional, Pa. R.E. 403; Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Wast of Time, or Other Reason?VI