Vocabulary

15. Study the following word combinations.

Article 1 says: “… if by an error of justice an innocent person is put to death …”

Remember other expressions with ‘put’:

To put smth aside, to put forward an idea, to put smth in a nutshell, to put smb in his/her (proper) place, to put smth into effect (practice), to put smth into words, to put smb off the scent, to put pressure on smb, to put an end to smth, to put smth to rights, to put two and two together.

Choose an appropriate expression from the ones given above to translate the word combinations given in italics in the following sentences.

1. Former criminals are often unable to find a job, this is a state of affairs that must (быть исправлено).

2. The unions (оказывали давление на) the government to reduce the limits on wage increases.

3. The idea is still unclear. It is hard (выразить ее словами).

4. The thieves tried (сбить полицию со следа) by leaving one of the jewels in a distant place, but still they were caught and brought to trial.

5. The police are trying to (положить конец) the wave of violent crime.

6. Tom (отложил работу над) his new book for a year while he wrote some magazine articles.

7. I have a little money (отложенные) for a rainy day.

8. The new law (будет приведен в действие) on the first of February.

9. The heads of government of many countries (выдвинули) a better system of protecting environment.

10. If the children behave badly while they are staying with you, don’t be afraid (поставить их на место).

11. Interest rates are high, prices are still rising, there is widespread unemployment: (короче говоря), the country is in a very bad state.

12. He didn’t say what he intended to do but it wasn’t hard (сообразить/сделать вывод) and predict his next move.

Reading and Speaking 2

16. Read the following article and decide which of the sentences given below fit into the numbered gaps in the text. There is one extra sentence that does not fit in.

1. That seems simple enough, but he believes he may have to go to the Supreme Court for a final ruling.

2. … he was sentenced to two months imprisonment, suspended for a year and ordered to pay £2,500 costs.

3. The government is consulting the judiciary about what to do when jurors are alleged to have behaved improperly.

4. It advises troubled jurors that they can raise doubts about the safety of criminal convictions, even post-trial, so long as there is a clear intention to avoid injustice.

5. But the law lords ruling also firmly upheld the principle that deliberations within the jury room should remain forever secret.

6. Until we had this judgment the attorney general was saying that a juror could not write to the court.

7. An editorial in the American Bar Association’s Legislation journal supports a proposed law to compel judges to inform jurors of their rights.

Lords Hand New Rights to Jury Whistleblowers

The first specific charter of rights for jurors concerned about miscarriages of justice was handed down by the law lords yesterday. (1) … Until now jurors have been told they can raise concerns with the judge before the verdict is passed, but they received no clear direction about what to do after the trial.

Yesterday’s ruling lists a variety of actions a juror can take without being prosecuted for contempt of court. It says that while jury-room issues can still be raised with the trial judge or with the appeal court, jurors can also safely alert the judicial authorities by contacting the clerk of the court or the jury bailiff. (2) … .

They dismissed an appeal by a juror, Keith Scotcher, who wrote an anonymous letter to the mother of a convicted defendant alerting her to alleged improprieties within the jury room. Mr Scotcher, a Ford assembly worker, was charged with contempt of court and obstruction of justice. Although the jurors believed such minor offences did not belong in a courtroom, (3) … .

The law lords yesterday refused to dismiss the charges against him, arguing that by directing his letter to the defendant’s mother, he disclosed the information which was supposed to be secret and risked compromising the confidentiality of the jury.

Marcia Willis Stewart, his solicitor, said: “For the first time the rights of a juror have been clarified. (4) … .” She also said the court was trying to intimidate the person with an independent mind and condemned the ruling as ‘dangerous’ because it threatened every juror with criminal prosecution. She outlined how Mr Scotcher wrote his letter, one passage of which said: “Many changed their vote simply because they wanted to get out of the courtroom and go home. They just decided on prejudice and hearsay.”

Mr Scotcher told ‘The Guardian’ he would take his case to the European court on the basis that his human rights have been abused. “I had been reluctant to sit on the jury in the first place because I am not the kind of person who wants to sit in judgment of other people,” he said. “Jurors must vote according to their conscience. They have a right to acquit.”

(5) … . In Britain juries are sworn “to give a true verdict according to the evidence”, but jurors in several high-profile cases have brought in “perverse” verdicts against the weight of the evidence to reflect their disapproval of the prosecution and thus exercised their right to veto the law.

A similar debate is going on in the USA, where courts use “voir dire”⁴ process, in which jurors are asked their opinions, often on personal matters, to exclude anyone with forceful opinions or extra knowledge of the case and its political or social content. A powerful campaign exists in America to limit jury powers and end the present system by exchanging ordinary citizens by retired lawyers and judges. There have been instances when a juror in a criminal case has been tried and convicted for telling fellow jurors that they have a right to acquit even if they believe the accused broke the law.

(6) … . “An adequate instruction could be conveyed in a single sentence,” it says, “explaining that the jury should (not must) convict anyone proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, unless the jurors have a firm belief that a conviction would be fundamentally unjust.”

(On the basis of ‘The Guardian’)

Vocabulary. Read the article again, find the following words and word combinations in the text and learn their meaning. Make it a particular point to use these words in the further discussion of the problem.

To pass (bring in) a verdict, to be prosecuted for smth, to raise an issue with smb, a defendant, to charge smb with smth, contempt of court, obstruction of justice, a minor offence, to belong somewhere, to be sentenced to …, to be suspended, to dismiss a charge, to disclose smth, to clarify smth, to intimidate smb, criminal prosecution, hearsay, to vote according to one’s conscience, to acquit smb, the judiciary, a high-profile (low-profile) case, the prosecution, the defence, to exercise one’s right, to veto smth, to convict smb

Suppose you must make a report on jury court procedure and the only material you have is the article you’ve just read. What information on the following points can you derive from it?

1. What kind of person can be a juror?

2. How informed must the jurors be in legal matters?

3. What is the function of a jury?

4. What rights and duties do the jurors have?

5. What procedure do the jurors follow in producing a verdict?

Discussion

1. What do you personally think of jury courts? Do you think they can ensure justice in court rulings?

2. Why is there an accepted rule that jurors cannot be professional lawyers? Do you agree with it?

3. Do you think jurors should be given a right to vote according to their conscience even if it goes against the evidence?

4. Do you think it’s possible to prevent bias in jury courts?