Unit 1. Giving the summary of the text Text 1

Task 1. Answer the questions:

1. What might disappoint a person in the judiciary system?

2. Do people always tell the truth in courts?

3. What is “presumption of innocence”?

Task 2. Read the text to get the main idea paying special attention to the underlined parts of the text (key words and word combinations)

There is a growing tendency for Americans to view our judicial system with frustration, distrust and even horror. In view of this wide­spread disaffection, I must empha­size that judges are also frustrated with the system. Depending on the court in which he sits, a judge may in any given month be assigned more than 100 cases, including rapes, murders, car wrecks, dog bites and divorces. Somehow he must find time, energy and pa­tience to provide a quick, economi­cal and fair disposition of every one of these cases, realizing that next month he may have l00-plus new cases. Somehow he must try to do his duty in a judicial system very little changed from what it was a century ago. That system takes its toll and works its changes upon him.

I Didn't Do lt.” Judges apply the law to the facts, as found by a jury. Where there is no dispute as to the fact (what really happened), it is my belief that juries should not be necessary. If everyone told the truth, juries would be required in but a tiny fraction of cases, and a main cause of trial delays —­which so discredit the judicial sys­tem, enrage the public and inflate the costs of litigation — would be removed. But a new judge soon finds that the solemn oath of a witness is only a comforting fiction, and that the threat of years of im­prisonment for perjury ensures the telling of truth about as much as knocking on wood ensures good fortune.

Imagine the frustration of a judge who must listen impassively to versions of events that are so contradictory as to be incapable of any interpretation other than that one or more of the parties are lying. I vividly recall hearing a man swear that he had lived with his divorced wife during a specific six-month period, supporting the family throughout, then hearing the wife swear that he had never entered the house during that entire period!

Criminal trials are no different. The judge hears police officers, ex­perts and citizens state in painful detail what they know, saw or heard, often weaving an inescap­able web of evidence around an accused. The accused then takes the stand and says, "I didn't do it." Or he presents a tale so unbelievable that the judge must set his features in stone lest they convey a forbid­den opinion to the jury.

What a massive waste of time and public resources! It is certainly true that no criminal defendant has the burden of proving his inno­cence. That is the law. But if the chief objective of all legal investiga­tion is the discovery of truth, then the mechanics we have developed since the Magna Charta are poorly designed indeed.

Even when the truth is known, the rules of evidence frequently suppress it, excluding it from the jury. It is my opinion that we are far too restrictive in what we permit a jury to consider. To a presiding judge, a trial too often takes on the aspects of a lottery, combining ele­ments of chance, skill and reward. Its function as a truth-seeking de­vice is purely secondary.