Английский методичка (Жаровская)

111

District Attorney.

A county official, elected in all but six states for two or four years terms, who represent the state in prosecutions against the violations of criminal law. In some states he is called a county attorney, county prosecutor, or, simply prosecutor. Prosecutions for the national government are handled by United States Attorneys.

Decision of whether to prosecute alleged violations are within their discretionary powers, often conditioned by their political ambitions. The conduct of the office may well depend upon the political climate in a given county, resulting in an uneven application of criminal law within the state.

Justice of the Peace.

A judicial officer empowered to try minor civil and criminal cases, such as traffic violations or breaches of peace. In some areas, he conducts preliminary hearings to determine whether a person should be held for trial in a higher court. The justice of the peace is usually elected in rural areas and small towns for a two-year term. In some states this office is by executive appointment. He is generally paid through fees. Not many justices are learned in the law, although a few states require a law degree. The fee system, it is charged, leads to corruption and biased judgement. In many urban areas, the office of justice of the peace is being replaced by municipal courts.

Magistrate.

Magistrate is a minor judicial officer, usually elected in urban areas, with jurisdiction over traffic violations, minor criminal offences, and civil suits involving small amounts of money. Magistrates may also conduct preliminary hearings in serious criminal cases and commit the offender to trial in a higher court. In some areas the magistrate court is called a police court, and its authority is similar to that of a justice of the peace serving in a rural area. Juries, though rarely used in magistrate courts, may consist of only six jurors.

Magistrate courts have been established to handle the large number of cases which arise in urban communities. Unlike the justice of the peace, a magistrate is usually paid a salary rather than a fee per case. The magistrate can dispose of large numbers of petty offences, thereby relieving the burden on higher courts and facilitating matters for offenders. Increasingly, cities are turning to specialised courts, such as traffic courts and domestic relations courts, to handle the large volume of work.

Exercise 2. Read the text and discuss the problems:

The Offensive Speaker

In 1948, Father Terminiello, a Roman Catholic priest, arrived to make a speech at a Chicago auditorium. Outside the auditorium about 300 people were picketing his speech. Inside, Terminiello criticized Jews and African Americans, as well as the crowd outside. By the time his speech was finished, 1,500 people had gathered outside. A police line prevented the protesters from entering the building. However, the “howling mob” outside was throwing stones and bricks at the building, and the police were unable to maintain control. The crowd was also yelling at and harassing people who came to hear Terminiello speak. Terminiello was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct under an ordinance forbidding any breach of the peace. He was convicted, and his conviction was upheld in the Illinois courts. However, in a 5-to-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed his conviction, ruling that the breach of the peace ordinance was vague and punished some speech that should have been protected.

112

1.What happened in the Terminiello case? Why was he arrested?

2.Should the police have controlled the crowd instead of arresting Terminiello? Did the police violate his First Amendment rights? Why or why not?

3.What did the U.S. Supreme Court decide in this case? Why?

4.Under what circumstances, if any, should people be prohibited from voicing unpopular

views? Explain your answer.

UNIT11. TRIAL JURORS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS.

VOCABULARY AND READING EXERCISES

Exercise 1. Read the words and practice the pronunciation. Translate the words.

Jury ['ʤuərɪ], juror ['ʤuərə], empanel [ɪm'pæn(ə)l], judgement ['ʤʌʤmənt], maintain [meɪn'teɪn], partial ['pɑːʃ(ə)l], uphold [ʌp'həuld], justice [ʤʌstɪs], impartial [ɪm'pɑːʃ(ə)l], challenge ['ʧælɪnʤ ], peremptory [pə'rempt(ə)rɪ], verdict ['vɜːdɪkt], panel ['pæn(ə)l], prejudice ['preʤədɪs], ['preʤudɪs], voir dire [ˈvwɑrˌdiər], probation [prə'beɪʃ(ə)n].

Vocabulary

1.Jury − присяжные

2.Juror − присяжный

3.jury-box − скамья присяжных

4.(v.) empanel the jury − составить список присяжных, включать в список присяжных

5.(v.) serve/ to sit on a jury − служить присяжным / исполнять обязанности присяжного заседателя

6.judgeship − обязанности судьи, функции судьи

7.judgement − заключение суда

8.standing judgement − судебное решение, оставленное в силе

9.(v.) pass a judgment − вынести решение

10.(v.) maintain law and order − поддерживать законность и правопорядок

11.voir dire − «говорить правду»: допрос судом свидетеля или присяжного на предмет выяснения его беспристрастности и непредубеждённости

12.voir dire examination − предварительная проверка допустимости лица в суд в качестве свидетеля или присяжного заседателя

13.(adj.) partial / impartial verdict − пристрастный / беспристрастный вердикт

14.(n.) prejudice − предубеждение, предвзятое мнение

15.(n.) challenge (n. & v.) − вызов обвинение призывать к ответу (за что-л.) давать отвод (присяжному, свидетелю, свидетельскому показанию и т.п.) ; не принимать дело к рассмотрению

16.peremptory challenge − отвод без указания причины

113

17.challenge to the panel − дать отвод присяжным

18.(v.) have the right to a number of challenges − иметь право на ряд отводов

19.(v.) reach a verdict − прийти к решению

20.(v.) pass a sentence − вынести приговор

21.probation − пробация (вид условного осуждения, при котором осуждённый остаётся на свободе, но находится под надзором сотрудника службы пробации)

22.(v.) be put on probation − осудить условно

23.(v.) uphold justice among citizens − поддерживать права граждан

Exercise 2.Answer the following questions:

1)Who can be a juror?

2)What is jurors' aid in maintenance of law and order?

3)Can you describe in detail the Voir Dire Examination ?

4)What is the difference between “a verdict” and “a judgement”?

Exercise 3. Read and translate the underlined words, then read and translate the text.

Jurors

Jurors perform a vital role in the American system of justice. The protection of our rights and liberties is largely achieved through the teamwork of judge and jury who, working together in a common effort, put into practice the principles of their great heritage of freedom. The judge determines the law to be applied in the case while the jury decides the facts. Thus, in a very important way, jurors become a part of the court itself.

Jurors must be men and women possessed of sound judgement, absolute honesty, and a complete sense of fairness. Jury service is a high duty of citizenship. Jurors aid in the maintenance of law and order and uphold justice among their fellow citizens. Their greatest reward is the knowledge that they have discharged this duty faithfully, honourably, and well, in addition to determining and adjusting property rights, jurors may also be asked to decide questions involving a crime for which a person may be fined, placed on probation, or confined in prison. In a very real sense, therefore, the people must rely upon jurors for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

To begin a jury trial, a panel of prospective jurors is called into the courtroom. This panel will include a number of persons from whom a jury will be selected to try the case. Alternate jurors may be chosen to take the place of jurors who become ill during the trial.

The panel members are sworn to answer questions about their qualifications to sit as jurors in the case. This questioning process is called the voir dire. This is an examination conducted by the judge and sometimes includes participation by counsel. A deliberately untruthful answer to any fair question could result in serious punishment to the person making it.

The voir dire examination opens with a short statement about the case. The purpose is to inform the jurors of what the case is about and to identify the parties and their lawyers.

Questions are then asked to find out whether any individuals on the panel have any personal interest in the case or know of any reason why they cannot render an impartial verdict. The court also wants to know whether any member of the panel is related to or personally acquainted with the parties, their lawyers, or the witnesses who will appear during the trial. Other questions will

114

determine whether any panel members have a prejudice or a feeling that might influence them in rendering a verdict. Any juror having knowledge of the case should explain this to the judge.

The parties also have a right to a certain number of challenges for which no cause is necessary. These are called peremptory challenges. Each side usually has a predetermined number of peremptory challenges. The peremptory challenge is a legal right long recognised by law as a means of giving both sides some choice in the make-up of a jury. Jurors should clearly understand that being eliminated from the jury panel by a peremptory challenge is no reflection upon their ability or integrity.

After the voir dire is completed, the jurors selected to try the case will be sworn in. The judge or the clerk will state to the jury:

“Members of the Jury, you will rise, hold up your right hands, and be sworn to try this case.”

The jurors then rise and hold up their right hands. The jurors face the judge or the clerk who is to administer the oath. That official slowly, solemnly, and clearly repeats the oath. The jurors indicate by their responses and upraised hands that they take this solemn oath.

Jurors not wishing to take an oath may request to affirm instead of swear. In some districts the jury is sworn upon the Bible and not by uplifted hand.

The charge of a judge to a jury in a United States District Court frequently is much more than a statement of the rules of law. Sometimes it may contain a summary of the facts or some of the facts.

It is the jury's duty to reach its own conclusion. This is done upon the evidence. The verdict is reached without regard to what may be the opinion of the judge as to the facts, though as to the law the judge's charge controls.

The judge may point out and may also explain what basic facts are in dispute, and what facts do not actually matter in the case. In other words, the judge may try to direct the jury's attention to the real merits of the case and impartially summarise the evidence bearing on the questions of fact. The judge will state the law related to the facts presented to the jury.

In both civil and criminal cases, it is the jury's duty to decide the facts in accordance with the principles of law laid down in the judge's charge to the jury. The decision is made on the evidence introduced, and the jury's decision on the facts is usually final.

VOCABULARY AND COMPREHENSION EXERCISES

Exercise 4. Consult a dictionary, transcribe the following words and practice their pronunciation:

jury / juror	pursuit	determine
panel	judgement	prospective
honesty	honourably	alternate
fairness	deliberately	maintenance
identify	faithfully	prejudice
confine	peremptory	dispute
impartially

Exercise 5. Explain the meaning of the phrases:

the charge of a judge;

115

the rules of law;

to reach one's own conclusion;

to reach a verdict;

the facts do not matter in the case;

the real merits of the case;

to administer the oath;

to be sworn upon the Bible;

to sit as jurors in the case;

a deliberately untruthful answer;

to identify the parties;

a panel member has a prejudice;

to be placed on probation.

Exercise 6. Find in the text sentences with the following grammar phenomena:

compound modal predicates (4);

adverbs in the function of adverbial modifier of manner (4-5);

predicates in the Passive Voice (5);

adjectives and form their degrees of comparison (4);

gerund in different functions;

participle II in the function of an attribute (3-4).

Exercise 7.

a)Fill in the blanks with suitable prepositions:

1. During the trial the jury may hear references____ the rules of evidence. 2. The jurors are not to rely ____ any private source of information. 3. If an inspection is necessary, the judge will have the jurors go as a group ____ the scene. 4. The judge takes his or her place ____ the bench and the court official announces the opening ____ court. 5. Jurors will be treated ____ consideration. 6. It must be remembered that each attorney presents the view of the case that is most favourable ____ his or her own client. 7. ____ other words, the judge may try to direct the jury's attention ____ the real merits of the case and summarise the evidence bearing ____ the questions ____ the fact. 8. The jury must consider each of the charges ____ the defendant, ____ which it may find the person: not guilty ____

any charge, guilty ____ all the charges or not guilty ____ others.

b) Put questions to the italicised words.

Exercise 8. Make a written translation of the text. Entitle and retell it.

116

Jurors should give close attention to the testimony. They are sworn to disregard their prejudices and follow the court's instructions. They must render a verdict according to their best judgement.

Each juror should keep an open mind. Human experience shows that, once persons come to a preliminary conclusion as to a set of facts, they hesitate to change their views. Therefore, it is wise for jurors not to even attempt to make up their mind on the facts of a case until all the evidence has been presented to them, and they have been instructed on the law applicable to the case. Similarly, jurors should not discuss the case even among themselves until it is finally concluded. During the trial the jury may hear references to the rules of evidence. Some of these rules may appear strange to a person who is not a lawyer. However, each rule has a purpose. The rules have evolved from hundreds of years of experience in the trial of cases.

The mere fact that a lawsuit was begun is not evidence in a case. The opening and closing statements of the lawyers are not evidence. A juror should disregard any statements made by a lawyer in argument that have not been proved by the evidence. A juror should also disregard any statement by a lawyer as to the law of the case if it is not in accord with the judge's instructions.

Jurors are expected to use all the experience, common sense and common knowledge they possess. But they are not to rely on any private source of information. Thus they should be careful, during the trial, not to discuss the case at home or elsewhere. Information that a juror gets from a private source may be only half true, or biased or inaccurate. It may be irrelevant to the case at hand. At any rate, it is only fair that the parties have a chance to know and comment upon all the facts that matter in the case.

Exercise 9. Make up sentences of your own with the following legal expressions:

to present the evidence;	to return a verdict;
to determine the law;	to try the case;
to identify the parties and	to discharge one’s duty
their lawyers;	faithfully and well.

Exercise 10. Translate into English:

1.95 процентов уголовных дел в США рассматривается без участия присяжных.

2.Суд прися́жных — институт судебной системы, состоящий из коллегии присяжных заседателей, отобранных по методике случайной выборки.

3.Суд присяжных рассматривает уголовные дела по обвинениям, как правило, в тяжких преступлениях в первой инстанции.

4.У американцев есть пословица: «Будь вежливым со всеми: никогда не знаешь, кто попадет в состав присяжных, которые будут тебя судить».

5.Присяжные руководствуются совестью и своим видением реалий общественной жизни, а не жесткими рамками норм права.

6.Американская система судов присяжных была унаследована от средневековой Англии, где в каждом населенном пункте созывалась коллегия из 12 “свободных и обладающих всеми законными правами” мужчин, чтобы помочь королю вершить правосудие.

7.Коллегии, вынося решения, веками руководствовались тем, что им было известно о правонарушениях в своей округе.

117

8.По мере роста населения Англии присяжные уже не могли более полагаться на соседские пересуды и начали все чаще и чаще опираться в своих решениях на свидетельства, услышанные ими в суде.

9.К тому времени, когда американская судебная система впитала в себя основные элементы британской модели, присяжным стали давать наказ игнорировать все, что они знают о деле, и судить о фактах только на основании доказательств, представленных в суде.

10.А в Билле о правах, принятом новоиспеченным американским государством в 1791 году, указывалось, что “при всяком уголовном преследовании обвиняемый имеет право на скорый и публичный суд беспристрастных присяжных”.

DISCUSSION

Exercise 1. Express your own opinion using conditional sentences. What do you think would happen if:

1.there were no judge during the jury trial;

2.the jury didn't reach the verdict;

3.a juror had a personal interest in the case;

4.the panel relied on any private source of information;

5.a juror didn't wish to take an oath before trying the case.

Exercise 2. Describe Jury trials in the USA (their past, present and future) in a form of amonologue of 20-25 sentences.

Exercise 3. Read the text and discuss the problems:

The Public Official’s Lawsuit for Libel

On March 29, 1960, the New York Times printed an advertisement paid for by four African

American clergymen. The ad was entitled “Heed Their Rising Voices.” It called attention to the civil rights struggle in the South and appealed for funds to be used for various causes, including a legal defense fund for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who had been indicted for perjury in Montgomery, Alabama. The ad focused on the violence with which the civil rights movement had been met in Montgomery. A portion of the advertisement contained factual errors. For example, the ad said that truckloads of armed police ringed

the Alabama State College campus when, in fact, the police were deployed near the campus but did not surround it. The ad also said that Dr. King had been arrested seven times, but he had actually been arrested only four times. L. B. Sullivan was an elected commissioner of the city of Montgomery, Alabama, and he was responsible for the police department there. While the advertisement did not mention him by name, he contended that references to police included him. Sullivan sued the clergymen and the newspaper for libel in the Alabama courts and was awarded damages of $500,000. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed

the decision. The Court viewed it as communicating information about a public issue of great concern. The Court said that debate on public issues must be “uninhibited, robust, and wide open” and that it may include “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on

118

government and public officials.” If critics had to guarantee the complete accuracy of every assertion, it would lead to self-censorship, not free debate. In the case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court established a rule that a public official

cannot recover damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to official conduct unless the official can prove the speaker either knew the statement was false or offered the statement with reckless disregard for its truth. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the clergymen and the newspaper did not know the information in the advertisement was false and they did not offer it with reckless disregard for its truth.

In a later case, the Court extended this rule to cover lawsuits brought by all public figures—not just public officials.

1.Do you agree or disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in this case? Explain the reasons for your answer.

2.Does the rule about public officials and public figures reduce the privacy rights of these people? Explain the reasons for your answer.

3.What rights and interests were balanced by the Supreme Court in deciding this case?

UNIT 12. CRIME

I. WORD BUILDING. Suffix –ing.

Suffix –ing is used:

to form gerunds

For example : Stop chasing me.

verbal nouns from verbs.

For example: the making of the film

to form uncountable nouns from various parts of speech denoting materials or systems of objects

considered collectively.

For example: Roofing is a material that covers a roof. Piping is a system of pipes considered collectively.

to form nouns of the action or the procedure of a verb; usually identical with verbal nouns in the

English language or expressed with -tion instead

For example: The forging of the sword took hours. - where forging denotes a planned procedure of work rather than a specific physical action.

to form present participles of verbs.

For example: Rolling stones gather no moss. You are making a mess.

Exercise 1. Read and translate the word combinations:

Governing body, arresting the suspects, looking for evidences, prohibiting parking, drug smuggling, harboring a grudge against smb., committing a crime, referring to a statute, robbing a bank, correcting behavior, violating a law, capturing a criminal.

119

VOCABULARY AND READING EXERCISES

Exercise 2. Read the words and practice the pronunciation. Translate the words.

Accompany [ə'kʌmpənɪ], guilty ['gɪltɪ] , prohibit [prə'hɪbɪt], Latin ['lætɪn], carelessness ['keələsnəs],

accidentally [ˌæksɪ'dent(ə)lɪ], stove [stəuv], apartment [ə'pɑːtmənt], arson	['ɑːs(ə)n],	property
['prɔpətɪ], motive ['məutɪv], poor [puə] , [pɔː], [pʊr] (Am.E.), liability	[ˌlaɪə'bɪlətɪ],	offense

[ə'fen(t)s], alcoholic [ˌælkə'hɔlɪk], beverage ['bevərɪʤ], minor ['maɪnə], apply [ə'plaɪ], serious ['sɪərɪəs], legislature ['leʤɪsləʧə], declare [dɪ'kleə], assume [ə's(j)uːm], define [dɪ'faɪn], robbery ['rɔb(ə)rɪ], however [hau'evə], burglary ['bɜːglərɪ], lawsuit ['lɔːs(j)uːt], assault [ə'sɔːlt], exist [ɪg'zɪst], disorderly [dɪs'ɔːd(ə)lɪ], either ['aɪðə], [ˈiðər] (Am.E.), classified ['klæsɪfaɪd], violate ['vaɪəleɪt], smuggling ['smʌglɪŋ], espionage ['espɪəˌnɑːʒ], fraud [frɔːd], felony ['felənɪ], imprisonment [ɪm'prɪz(ə)nmənt], misdemeanor [ˌmɪsdɪ'miːnə], although [ɔːl'ðəu], principal ['prɪn(t)səp(ə)l], accomplice [ə'kɔmplɪs], getaway ['getəweɪ], punishment ['pʌnɪʃmənt], avoid [ə'vɔɪd], capture ['kæpʧə], escape [ɪs'keɪp], harboring ['hɑːb(ə)rɪŋ], fugitive ['fjuːʤətɪv], justice ['ʤʌstɪs], separate ['sep(ə)rət], statute ['stætjuːt], jurisdiction [ˌʤuərɪs'dɪkʃ(ə)n], victim ['vɪktɪm], occur [ə'kɜː], omission [ə'mɪʃ(ə)n], automobile ['ɔːtəmə(u)biːl], accident ['æksɪd(ə)nt], inchoate ['ɪnkəueɪt].

Vocabulary

1.(v.) commit a crime – совершать преступление

2.a guilty state of mind – осознанное (умышленное) действие

3.(v.) prohibit − запрещать

4.(adv.) intentionally − намеренно

5.(n.) intent − намерение

6.(n.) felony – тяжкое (уголовное) преступление

7.(adv.) knowingly (willfully) – сознательно, намеренно

8.	(v.) find (to сonsider) guilty − признать виновным

9.(adv.) accidentally − случайно

10.(v.) be guilty of arson – быть виновным в поджоге

11.(n.) motive − мотив

12.(v.) refer to – ссылаться, обращаться

13.the level of awareness − уровень осведомленности

14.(adv.) recklessly − опрометчиво; по грубой неосторожности

15.(v.) steal (stole, stolen) − красть

16.strict liability offenses – тяжкие преступления

17.(v.) sell alcoholic beverages to minors − продавать алкогольные напитки несовершеннолетним

18.(v.) be underage − быть несовершеннолетним

19.less serious offenses –менее тяжкие преступления

20.parking violations – нарушение правил паркирования

21.(v.) be proven at trial – доказываться в суде

120

22.(v.) convict – выносить приговор, признавать виновным (в чем-л. - of) ;

23.a convict − отбывающий наказание (преступник); осужденный, заключенный;

24.(n.) intimidation − запугивание

25.(n.) robbery − ограбление

26.(n.) assault –разбойное нападение,

27.disorderly conduct − хулиганство,

28.drunk driving − вождение в нетрезвом виде

29.(v.) be prosecuted − быть привлеченным к ответственности

30.(v.) occur − случаться

31.(n.) failure to pay – невозможность заплатить

32.mail fraud − мошенничество с использованием почты

33.(n.) espionage − шпионаж

34.international smuggling − международная контрабанда

35.illegal possession of drugs − незаконное хранение наркотиков

36.bank robbery − ограбление банка

37.(v.) violate a law – нарушать закон

38.(n.) imprisonment − лишение свободы

39.(n.) misdemeanor– проступок, правонарушение

40.traffic violations − нарушения правил дорожного движения

41.(v.) be punishable by law − преследуется по закону

Exercise 3. Look through the active vocabulary and make up 10 words with –ing-.

Exercise 4. Read and translate the underlined words. Then read and translate the text. Crime

Almost all crimes require an illegal act accompanied by a guilty state of mind, what usually means that the prohibited act was done intentionally, knowingly, or willfully. The Latin term used by lawyers when they discuss this requirement for a guilty mind is mens rea. In most cases, mere carelessness is not considered a guilty state of mind. For example, if Meredit accidentally forgot to turn off the stove before leaving for work and the whole apartment building caught fire as a result, she would not be guilty of arson, which is the intentional burning of a person’s property. She committed the act but did not have the guilty state of mind.

State of mind is different from motive. It refers to the level of awareness a person has when committing an act, for example intentionally or recklessly. Motive is the person’s reason for performing the act. For example, Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor, but his state of mind was intentional, so he would be guilty of a crime. A few crimes are strict liability offenses. These crimes do not require a guilty state of mind. The act itself is criminal, regardless of the knowledge or intent of the person committing it. For example, it is a strict liability crime to sell alcoholic beverages to minors. Selling alcohol to a minor is a crime regardless of whether the seller knew the buyer was underage. Strict liability often applies to less serious offenses such as parking violations. The state does not have to prove a guilty state of mind, only that a car was parked illegally. Unless a legislature declares in a law that it is a strict liability offense, courts assume that a guilty intent is required.