Главная страница
Навигация по странице:

  • What Happens During the Trial

  • Step 4. The Instructions.

  • Step 6, Jury Deliberation.

  • Прения сторон Прежде чем исследованные в предшествующей стадии су­дебного разбирательства материалы дела будут анализироваться в совещании присяжных

  • Вердиктом

  • Just_English_2 часть. Just English. Английский для юристов 43


    Скачать 1.96 Mb.
    НазваниеJust English. Английский для юристов 43
    АнкорJust_English_2 часть.doc
    Дата02.05.2017
    Размер1.96 Mb.
    Формат файлаdoc
    Имя файлаJust_English_2 часть.doc
    ТипДокументы
    #6435
    страница11 из 20
    1   ...   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   ...   20

    Just English. Английский для юристов
    Chapter IV. Fair Trial: the Jury

    137


    It's Interesting to Know

    Curious Wills

    • When Margaret Montgomery of Chicago died in 1959, she
    left her five cats and a $15,000 trust fund for their care to a
    former employee, William



    Fields. The will stipulated that Fields was to use the trust income solely for the cats' care and feeding, including such delicacies as pot roast meat If, however, he outlived all the cats, Fields would inherit the trust principal. Nine years later the last cat, Fat Nose, died at 20, and Fields, 79, was $15,000 richer.

    • Charles Vance Millar, a Canadian lawyer and financier
      who died a bachelor in 1926, bequeathed the bulk of his fortune
      to whichever Toronto women gave birth to the largest number
      of children in the 10 years after his death. Four women
      eventually tied in the 'stork derby' that followed the publication
      of his will. Each had 9 children, and they shared between them
      $750,000. A fifth woman who had 10 children was ruled out
      because 5 were illegitimate.

    • One of the world's shortest wills was left by an
      Englishman named Dickens. Contested in 1906 but upheld by
      the courts, it read simply: "All for mother".

    • A ^^-century London tavernkeeper left his property to
      his wife — on the condition that every year, on the anniversary
      of his death, she would walk barefoot to the local market, hold
      up a lighted candle, and confess aloud how she had nagged him.
      The theme of the confession was that if her tongue had been
      shorter, her husband's days would have been longer. If she failed
      to keep the appointment, she was to receive no more than 20
      pounds a year, just enough to live on. Whether the wife decided
      to take the bigger bequest or spare herself humiliation is not
      known.

    UNIT 6. STEPS OF THE TRIAL

    TASK 1. Read the following text and write down Russian equivalents for the words and expressions in bold type:

    What Happens During the Trial

    Events in a trial usually happen in a particular order, though the order may be changed by the judge. The usual order of events is set out below.

    Step 1. Selection of the Jury.

    Step 2. Opening Statements. The lawyers for each side will discuss their views of the case that you are to hear and will also present a general picture of what they intend to prove about the case. What the lawyers say in their opening statements is not evidence and, therefore, does not help prove their cases.

    Step 3. Presentation of Evidence. All parties are entitled to present evidence. The testimony of witnesses who testify at trial is evidence. Evidence may also take the form of physical exhibits, such as a gun or a photograph. On occasion, the written testimony of people not able to attend the trial may also be evidence in the cases you will hear.

    Many things you will see and hear during the trial are not evidence. For example, what the lawyers say in their opening and closing statements is not evidence. Physical exhibits offered by the lawyers, but not admitted by the judge, are also to be disregarded, as is testimony that the judge orders stricken off the record.

    Many times during the trial the lawyers may make objections to evidence presented by the other side or to questions asked by the other lawyer. Lawyers are allowed to object to these things when they consider them improper under the laws of evidence. It is up to the judge to decide whether each objection was valid or invalid, and whether, therefore, the evidence can be admitted or the question allowed. If the objection was valid, the judge will sustain the objection If the objection was not valid, the judge will overrule the objection. These rulings do not reflect the judge's opinion of the case or whether the judge favours or does not favour the evidence or the question to which there has been an objection. It is your duty as a juror to decide the weight or importance of evidence or testimony allowed by the judge. You are also the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses, that is, of whether their testimony is believable. In considering credibility, you may take into



    138

    Just English. Английский для юристов

    Chapter IV. Fair Trial: the Jury

    139





    account the witnesses' opportunity and ability to observe the events about which they are testifying, their memory and manner while testifying, the reasonableness of their testimony when considered in the light of all the other evidence in the case, their possible bias or prejudice, and any other factors that bear on the believability of the testimony or on the importance to be given that

    testimony.

    Step 4. The Instructions. Following presentation of all the evidence, the judge instructs the jury on the laws that are to guide the jury in their deliberations on a verdict. A copy of the instructions will be sent to the jury room for the use of jurors during their deliberations. All documents or physical objects that have been received into evidence will also be sent to the jury room.

    Step 5. Closing Arguments. The lawyers in the closing arguments summarize the case from their point of view. They may discuss the evidence that has been presented or comment on the credibility of witnesses. The lawyers may also discuss any of the judge's instructions that they feel are of special importance to their case. These arguments are not evidence.

    Step 6, Jury Deliberation. The jury retires to the jury room to conduct the deliberations on the verdict in the case they have just heard. The jury first elects a foreman who will see to it that discussion is conducted in a sensible and orderly fashion, that all issues are fully and fairly discussed, and that every juror is given a fair chance to participate.

    When a verdict has been reached, the foreman signs it and informs the bailiff. The jury returns to the courtroom, where the foreman presents the verdict. The judge then discharges the jury from the case.

    TASK 2. Find in the text above the English equivalents for the following words and expressions:

    1. вступительная речь

    2. заключительная речь

    3. надёжность свидетеля

    4. зачитать вердикт

    5. правомерный протест

    6. принять, поддержать протест

    7. вычеркнуть из протокола

    8. удалиться в комнату для совещаний присяжных

    9. совещание присяжных




    1. старшина присяжных

    2. свидетельские показания

    3. отклонить протест

    TASK 3. Answer the following questions:

    1. What are the steps of a trial?

    2. What can be considered evidence?

    3. What is a physical exhibit?

    4. What are objections?

    5. When can objections be made?

    6. Who can sustain or overrule an objection?

    7. What does the judge say in the instructions?

    8. Who presents closing arguments?

    9. What happens during jury deliberations?

    TASK 4. Render the following text into English paying special attention to the words and expressions given in bold type:

    Прения сторон

    Прежде чем исследованные в предшествующей стадии су­дебного разбирательства материалы дела будут анализироваться в совещании присяжных, они обсуждаются в процессе судеб­ных прений, где государственный обвинитель и защитник, ис­пользуя профессиональные знания и навыки, восстанавливают связь между доказательствами, позволяя судьям от общества сделать свободный выбор между обвинением и оправданием под­судимого.

    Позиции обвинения и защиты в суде присяжных строятся не только на основе принципа состязательности, но и на основе принципа презумпции невиновности: невиновность подсудимого предполагается, а виновность доказывается обвинителем.

    Судья вправе прервать речь, возражение или замечание стороны, если в них содержатся:

    • сведения, не имеющие прямого отношения к делу;

    • обстоятельства, оскорбительные для чьей-либо чести и
      достоинства;

    • данные, не проверенные в ходе судебного следствия;

    • ссылки на исключенные из дела доказательства;

    • сведения о прежней судимости обвиняемого;

    140


    Just English. Английский для юристов

    иные обстоятельства, влияющие на объективность при­
    сяжных.

    Судья в своем напутственном слове объясняет присяжным заседателям, что при вынесении вердикта они должны:

    • руководствоваться здравым смыслом;

    • руководствоваться принципом презумпции невиновнос­
      ти, согласно которому подсудимый не обязан доказывать
      свою невиновность: бремя доказывания вины подсуди­
      мого лежит на государственном обвинителе;

    • оценивать исследованные в суде доказательства (показа­
      ния подсудимого, потерпевшего, свидетелей, заключения
      экспертов
      и др.) в их совокупности, согласовывая их одно
      с другим;

    • не принимать во внимание доказательства, вычеркнутые
      из протокола;

    • не воспринимать как доказательства доводы, прозвучав­
      шие в речах сторон.

    TASK 5. Translate the following text into Russian:

    Verdict

    Verdict, in law, is the pronouncement of the jury upon matters of fact submitted to them for deliberation and determination. In civil cases, verdicts may be either general or special. A general verdict is one in which the jury pronounces generally upon all the issues, in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant. A special verdict is one in which the jury reviews the facts, but leaves to the court any decisions on questions of law arising from those facts. As a rule, however, special verdicts are not applicable to criminal cases, and in most instances the jury renders a general verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty."

    Generally, the jury's verdict must be unanimous. In a number of states, however, the condition of unanimity has been modified, and verdicts can consequently be rendered by a designated majority of the jury. All jury members must be present in court when the verdict is given.

    In criminal cases a verdict of acquittal is conclusive upon the prosecution (the state), thus precluding double jeopardy, but the defendant may be tried again in the event the jury cannot reach a decision. The defendant must be present when the verdict is rendered.


    141

    Chapter IV. Fair Trial: the Jury

    TASK 6. Match the following English expressions with their Russian equivalents:

    1) final verdict

    а) вердикт о виновности

    2) general verdict

    b) вердикт о невиновности

    3) special verdict

    с) вердикт об оправдании

    4) to attain/reach/return/

    d) вердикт об осуждении

    bring in a verdict

    е) вынести вердикт

    5) unanimous verdict

    f) генеральный вердикт,

    6) verdict of acquittal

    вердикт по существу дела

    7) verdict of conviction

    g) окончательный вердикт

    8) verdict of guilty

    h) ошибочный вердикт

    9) verdict of non-guilty

    i) прийти к соглашению

    10) wrong verdict

    относительно вердикта

    11) to agree to/upon a verdict

    j) вердикт, вынесенный




    единогласно




    к) специальный вердикт




    (решение присяжными




    частного вопроса)

    TASK 7. Render the following text into English paying special attention to the words and expressions given in bold type:

    Вердиктом является решение коллегии присяжных заседа­телей по поставленным перед ней вопросам, включая основной вопрос о виновности подсудимого.

    Присяжные выносят вердикт

    • без постороннего влияния, удалившись в совещательную
      комнату;

    • открытым голосованием, причем никто не вправе воздер­
      жаться от принятия решения;

    • путем единогласного решения, или большинством го­
      лосов;

    • ответы даются по каждому вопросу отдельно.

    Руководит совещанием присяжных старшина, который по­следовательно ставит на обсуждение подлежащие разрешению вопросы, проводит голосование, ведет подсчет голосов.

    TASK 8. Revise your knowledge of the work of juries. Fill in the gaps in the following sentences:

    1. A juror should keep an open all through

    the trial. 2. You become a potential juror after your name is selected

    Just English. Английский для юристов


    142


    . 3. A crime

    .4. To


    from voters registration


    of graver nature than a misdemeanour is a


    somebody means to find a person not guilty in a trial.


    of jury
    5. Civil cases are usually disputed between or among

    corporations or other organizations. 6. The

    doesn't need to be in civil cases. 7. The

    keeps track of all documents and exhibits in trial being the judge's

    assistant. 8. The job of a juror is to listen to and to

    decide . 9. One who is engaged in a lawsuit is called a

    .10. Process by which a lawyer questions a witness called

    to testify by the other side is . 11. " "

    is a phrase meaning "to speak the truth". 12. A juror should not be

    influenced by sympathy or .13. A juror should not

    express his to other jurors before

    begin. 14. Formal accusation of having committed a criminal offence

    is a . 15. To be a good juror you should use your

    and be . 16. The third stage of a trial is
    , you must have your

    may be

    1. Compromise agreement by opposing parties, eliminating the need
      for the judge to resolve the controversy is called .

    2. Trier of facts is a or, in a non-jury trial — a

    22. People who don't meet certain

    from jury service. 23. Lawyers for each side are allowed

    to when they consider something done improper

    under the of evidence. 24. Attorney who represents the

    defendant is a . 25. is any statement made

    by a witness under

    in legal proceedings. 26.

    means that the lawyer doesn't have to state a

    for asking the juror to be excused. 27. The party

    , when the lawyers

    bringing the suit is called a . 28. The fifth step of a trial

    of view. 29. The lawsuit is started by . 30. The defendant's innocence . 30. It is up to judge to

    is called

    the case from their

    filing a paper called a

    is valid or

    „^. ^ ™ o of evidence, the judge gives

    to the jurors on the laws that are to guide them in their

    is unless he is proved

    on

    decide whether each 31. Following the

    143

    Chapter IV. Fair Trial: the Jury

    a . 32. A case is brought by the state or the city

    against a person or persons accused of a crime. 33. In

    cases people who have been may sue a person or a

    company they feel is responsible for . 34. If the defendant

    has not guilty, the prosecution must prove his guilt to

    overcome the . 35. The elected by

    is conducted in orderly

    the jury should provide that

    fashion. 36. is a request by a party to excuse a

    specific juror for some reason. 37. The in trial decides

    the law, i.e. makes decisions on legal . 38. Most often in civil

    cases the party bringing the is asking for money .

    UNIT 7. THE VALUE OF JURIES

    Falling Bastion?

    How valuable is the jury in modern times? This is a very controversial question On the one hand the jury has much ancient history behind it (though some scholars have argued it is more mythology than true history) as a bastion of the liberty of the subject against repressive governments. To a minor degree the jury can, and occasionally still does, play this role.

    The jury system is the ordinary citizen's link with the legal process. It is supposed to safeguard individual liberty and justice because a commonsense decision on the facts either to punish or acquit is taken by fellow citizens rather than by professionals. But the system has been criticized because of its high acquittal rates; allegedly unsuitable or subjective jurors; intimidation of jurors; and administrative reason for saving time and costs.

    Throughout the world the use of jury trials is limited. The French Revolution initiated trial by jury in continental Europe, and this spread to other civil-law countries, but only for criminal trials. In the 20th century jury trials have been abandoned or eliminated in most civil-law countries. Jury trials survive primarily in the common-law countries, above all, the United States. Even there and in England jury trial has declined in favor of trial by judge. Many critics urge the curtailment or elimination of the jury trial as an amateurish and inefficient method of determining a legal issue. Critics would like to replace the jury with panels of experts in Relevant fields. But, after widespread opposition to such proposals, 't seems as though the jury will continue in its present form.









    144

    Just English. Английский для юристов

    Chapter IV. Fair Trial: the Jury

    145






    Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor.

    Justice Byron White

    TASK 3. Read the article describing the current debate on jury system in the UK:

    Jury System Reform Defeated in Parliament

    TASK 1. Answer the following questions:

    1. Why is jury called 'the bastion of liberty'?

    2. Why has the jury system been criticized?

    3. In what countries is the jury system used? Why?

    TASK 2. Comment on the following quotations. Which of them are for or against the jury system? Give your grounds:
    1   ...   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   ...   20


    написать администратору сайта