Quote Originally Posted by r.e. View Post
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 the police office 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.
Maybe I'm getting into something where my ignorance is starting to show. Please bear with me.

What you say is what I thought in my intitial reaction to what cyrus said. With one minor difference. I was thinking about civil and criminal cases that I was juror opn in our Superior Court, which cyrus was not. The judge in all of those cases didn't overtly believe or disbelieve the cop's testimony. He proceeded over the discussions (attending to protocol mostly) where laywers on both sides presented evidence trying to use the cop's testimony to support their arguement. The judge presented the jurors with the law (criteria) and it was up to us to evaluate the testimony relative to the law.

In a similar situation that doesn't enjoy the benefit of a jury, I would hope that you are very correct!

In traffic court where we can appear before a judge to "fight a ticket" my experience is that more often than not the judge sides with the cops judgement, based on them being "trained observers" is what I've been told.