I don't know about the U.S., but elsewhere judges most certainly do "get into the middle" of that kind of conversation. It's their job. On a charge of disturbing the peace, the fundamental issue is whether, as a matter of fact, the accused was or was not disturbing the peace. It isn't a matter of a police officer standing up and saying "I think that he was disturbing the peace," and that's the end of it. At least, that's not how it works in any courtroom that I've ever tried a case in.
In part, Cyrus's argument seems to be that this has to be recognized as a constitutional right because the U.S. court process is otherwise a joke, which is pretty pathetic if true.
Bookmarks