Учебное пособие по английскому языку краснодар 2012 Печатается по решению



НазваниеУчебное пособие по английскому языку краснодар 2012 Печатается по решению
страница5/9
Дата02.04.2013
Размер1.02 Mb.
ТипУчебное пособие
источник
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9
Тема №14

^ Судебная система США

  1. Look, listen, repeat

Specialist [‘speSlist]

Jurisdiction [,GVqris’dikSn]

National [‘nxSnql]

Organize [‘Lgqnaiz]

Veto [‘vi:tqV]

Block [blOk]

Bill [bil]

Mayor [meq(r)]

Federal Court of Appeal [‘fedqrql kLt qv x’pi:l]


  1. ^ Some new words for the text:

To coexist сосуществовать

Court of last resort суд последней инстанции

Claim требование, претензия

Traffic (дорожное) движение

Bar exam экзамен на право выступать в суде

To fall under попадать под

To sue подать иск

Litigation тяжба, судебный процесс

Tier ряд, ярус

To resolve решать, разрешать (судебные дела)

To appeal подавать апелляцию

Exception исключение

Generalist

To appoint назначать

For life пожизненно

Unjust несправедливый

Binding обязательный, обязывающий.


  1. ^ Examine the chart and read the text given below



US Supreme Court

Opinions

(Approximately 140 signed opinions)


Original jurisdiction(Approximately 10 cases)

Request for review

(Approximately 4200 petitions and appeals)

From

Federal

Administrative

Agencies
















^ US Courts of Appeals

(36,000 cases)




State Courts of Last

Resort

(60,000 cases)

















^ State Intermediate Appellate

Courts (130,000 cases)










^ US District Courts

( 94 Courts) (280,000cases)




State Trial Courts

(27,000,000 cases)



The Court System of the USA

The American court system is complex, mainly because of the federal system of government in the USA. Each state runs its own court system, and no two are identical. In addition, there is a separate system of federal courts which coexists with the state courts.

The structure of state courts varies from state to state. Usually there are minor trial courts for less serious cases, major trial courts for more serious cases, intermediate appellate courts and courts of last resort. The state’s minor trial courts have various names: justice courts, small-claim courts, traffic courts, police courts, municipal courts. The judges in these courts are usually quite professional, but some states still have Justices of the Peace – men and women who have never gone to law school and never taken the bar exam.

Individuals fall under jurisdiction of two different court systems, their state courts and federal courts. They can sue or be sued in either system, depending mostly on what their case is about. The vast majority of cases are resolved in the state courts.

The federal courts are organized in three tiers, like a pyramid. At the bottom of the pyramid are the US district courts, where litigation begins. There are about ninety four district courts in different parts of the United States. The district courts are the lowest ones in the Federal court system. Most of the criminal and civil cases are tried by these courts. The district court is the only Federal court where trials are held, juries are used, and witnesses are called. There are about two hundred district judges in the USA. In the middle are the US courts of appeals. At the top is the US Supreme Court. To appeal means to take a case to a higher court. The courts of appeals and the Supreme Court are appellate courts, with few exceptions, they review cases that have been decided in lower courts. Most federal courts hear and decide a wide array of cases; the judges in these courts are known as generalists and they are appointed for life.

The Supreme Court hears cases in which someone claims that a lower court ruling is unjust or in which someone claims that Constitutional law has been violated. The U.S. Supreme Court has only nine justices, headed by Chief Justice. The decisions of this Court are final and become legally binding.


  1. ^ Read and translate the following words paying attention to suffixes and

prefixes in word-building:

To advise – adviser – advisory – advice; to just – justice – justify; to appoint – appointed – appointing – appointment; to try – tried – untried – trial; to decide – decided – deciding – decision; to imprison – imprisonment; to differ – differing – difference – different; to depend – dependent – independent – dependence – independence.


  1. ^ Review vocabulary for the text by reading and translating the following

word-combinations:

To coexist with the state courts; to vary from state to state; state’s minor trial courts; more serious criminal cases; to take the bar exam; to hear civil cases; to handle cases of serious crime; to be appointed for life; to fall within federal jurisdiction; to sit alone; to violate the law; to hear and decide a wide array of cases; to become legally binding.


^ 6. Find in the text above the English equivalents for the following words and expressions:

- суды штатов

- частные лица

- суд последней инстанции

- подать иск

- федеральные суды

- подавляющее большинство

- трех ярусная система судов

- окружные суды

- высшие суды

- низшие суды

- исключение

- попадать под юрисдикцию

- на всю жизнь, пожизненно

- рассматривать дело

- Верховный суд США.


^ 7. Match the name of the courts with their jurisdictions:

  1. Supreme Court 1. Most of the criminal and civil cases are tried by

this court.

  1. Court of Appeal 2. It hears appeals from lower courts.

  2. District Court 3. It has the right to declare unconstitutional any law

passed by Congress.


^ 8. Read the sentences completing them according to the text:

  1. The American court system is complex, mainly because of …

  2. The structure of state courts varies …

  3. The state’s minor trial courts have various names: justice courts, … .

  4. The federal courts coexist with …

  5. Federal courts are also organized in three tiers: district courts, courts of appeal and …

  6. … are appointed for life.

  7. Individuals fall under jurisdiction of two different court systems … and … .

  8. … are the lowest ones in the Federal court system.

  9. The Supreme Court has … headed by Chief Justice.

  10. The decisions of the Supreme Court are …


^ 9. Answer the following questions:

1. Who is responsible for making laws in the US?

2. Name American courts in the descending order.

3. In what way are the federal courts organized?

4. Where does litigation begin?

5. What does the word «to appeal» mean?


^ 10. Use these words in the following sentences and translate them:

unconstitutional executive

appellate Associate

Supreme Chief

1. The head of the judicial organ of the USA is the …Court.

2. The Court is made up of the … Justice and eight … Justices.

3. If the Constitution does not give Congress the power to pass a certain law, the Court declares the law …

4. Unconstitutional laws cannot be enforced by the President and his … officers.

5. The Court of Appeals has only … jurisdiction.


  1. Read the information about federal courts system in the USA and translate (into Russian):

Courts of Claims The government can be sued for unpaid salary,

property taken for public use and personal injuries for

which the Federal government is responsible.

The Court of Claims consists of a chief justice and 4

associate justices who are appointed by the President

with Senate approval.

^ Customs Court This court deals with all the cases arising at the customs

when goods enter the country. This court was

established in 1890 and is located in New York

where most of its business is conducted.

Court of Customs and

Patent Appeals The court hears appeals from decisions of the Customs

Court and the Patent Office. Its judgements and decrees

are final.


^ 12. Read and translate the short dialogue, using the vocabulary of the text above. Then reproduce it

  1. - What is the judicial branch of power in the USA?

  2. - The judicial branch of government is the system of courts.

  1. - And what is its job?

  2. - Its job is to enforce the law.

  1. - Is it true that Supreme Court is the highest court in the country?

  2. - Yes, it’s true. This court consists of 9 justices: one Chief Justice and 8

associate justices.

  1. - Who appoints the justices to the Supreme Court?

  2. - The US President appoints the justices, but the Senate must approve them.

The justices are appointed for life. The judicial branch works together with

the legislative and executive branches to protect the Constitution and the

right of the citizens of the USA.


^ 13. Translate the sentences into English using Passive Voice:

  1. Меня попросили рассказать о судебной системе США.

  2. Эти судьи назначаются президентом.

  3. Этого свидетеля вызвали последним.

  4. Присяжные используются в наиболее серьезных случаях.

  5. Закон был принят вчера.

  6. Страна разделена на несколько судебных округов.

  7. Большинство гражданских дел рассматривается судами магистрата.

  8. Существующие системы судов штатов возглавляются Верховными Судами штатов.

  9. Суды штатов организованы подобно федеральным судам.


^ 14. Fill in the blanks.

Federal and State Court System

The federal courts have three tiers: (a)________courts, courts of (b)_______ and the (c)______Court. The (d)______Court was created by the Constitution; all other (e) _______courts were created by Congress. Most litigation occurs in (f) ____courts. The structure of (g)______courts varies from state to state; usually there are (h)_____for less serious cases, (i)_____ for more serious cases, intermediate(j)_____ courts, and courts of last (k)_____. State courts were created by state constitutions.


15. Ситуация. Предположим, что вы – один из судей Верховного Суда США. Иностранные корреспонденты задают вам вопросы о судебной системе США. Дайте точные ответы на их вопросы.

^ 16. Retell the text.


The word EVIDENCE has the following meanings in Russian:

1) доказательство

Evidence at law – судебные доказательства

2) показания

Evidence for the defence – показания свидетелей защиты

3) улики

Evidence of crime - улики

4) свидетельство

Written evidence – письменное свидетельство


Match the following English expressions with their Russian equivalents:

  1. evidence in the case 1. вещественное доказательство

  2. evidence on oath 2. доказательства вины

  3. to give (offer) evidence 3. доказательства или показания по делу

  4. to plant evidence 4. доказательство из первых рук

  5. to weigh evidence 5. заключение эксперта

  6. to withhold evidence 6. косвенное доказательство

  7. evidence of guilt 7. лжесвидетельство

  8. circumstantial evidence 8. ложное доказательство, показания

  9. conclusive (decisive) evidence 9. недостаточное доказательство

  10. expert evidence 10. неопровержимое доказательство

  11. false evidence 11. оценить доказательства

  12. first hand evidence 12. показания под присягой

  13. insufficient evidence 13. скрыть доказательства

  14. irrefutable evidence 14. сфабриковать доказательства

  15. perjured evidence 15. окончательное, решающее

  16. physical evidence 16. давать (предоставлять)

  17. evidence wrongfully доказательство, доказательства

obtained 17. доказательства, полученные с

нарушением закона.


Just for fun

Read the following jokes. Try to retell them. You may do it in Russian:

1. A friend of a judge dropped in for a visit one morning before court opened

and looked around. «Goodness, you certainly have a lot of criminals to try this

morning, haven’t you?» he observed.

«Oh, not so many», answered the judge. «You are looking at the wrong bench – those are lawyers».

2. Lawyer: «Now that we have won, will you tell me confidentially if you stole

the money?»

Client: «Well, after hearing you talk in court yesterday, I am beginning to think I didn’t».


  1. Judge: «Have you anything to say before I pass sentence on you?»

Prisoner: «Yes, Your Honour, I should like you to have your lunch first».


4. A man was accused of stealing a pair of trousers. After a long examination

he was acquitted, because the evidence against him was not sufficiently strong. He

stayed, however, in the dock after his acquittal had been pronounced. The

lawyer who had defended him, observing that he didn’t go away, informed him

that he was free to go whenever he wanted. The man shook his head slightly,

but remained. By this time the court was nearly empty. Again his lawyer told

him that he could go.

«I can’t go till all the witnesses against me have left the court», said the man.

«And why may that be?» asked the lawyer.

«Because of the stolen trousers, sir. I’ve got them on».

5. The defence lawyer was cross-examining a witness. He asked, «And you say

you called on Mrs. Jones, May second. Now will you tell the jury what she

said?» «I object the question», interrupted the prosecutor. There was nearly an

hour’s argument between the counsels and finally the judge allowed the

question. «And as I was saying», the defence lawyer began again, «on May

second you called on Mrs. Jones. Now what did she say?» «Nothing», replied

the witness. «She was not at home».


Supplementary Reading

Text№1


^ 1. Read and translate two texts which come from a handbook on jury service for US citizens. The following words will help you understand the texts:

Freedom свобода

On the one hand с одной стороны

On the other hand с другой стороны

Legal issue вопрос права, правовая проблема

In order to для того, чтобы

Ability способность, склонность

To keep an open mind оставаться беспристрастным

Common sense здравый смысл

Fair справедливый, честный

Honest честный

To influence влиять, оказывать влияние

Prejudice предубеждение

To challenge оспаривать, заявлять

Experience опыт

Registration record регистрационный архив

To evaluate оценивать, давать оценку

Eligible подходящий, соответствующий

Felony тяжкое уголовное преступление

To meet the requirements удовлетворять требования

To interfere мешать, вредить


^ Jury Service – an Important Job and a Rewarding Experience

The right to trial by a jury of our fellow citizens is one of our most important rights and is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. By serving on a jury, then, you are helping to guarantee one of our most important freedoms.

Your job as a juror is to listen to all the evidence presented at trial and to «decide the fact» – that is, to decide what really happened. The judge, on the other hand, «decides the law» – that is, makes decisions on legal issues that come up during the trial. For example, the judge may have to decide whether you and other jurors may hear certain evidence or whether one lawyer may ask a witness a certain question. You should not try to decide these legal issues, sometimes you will even be asked to leave the courtroom while they are being decided. Both your job and that of the judge must be done well if our system of trial by jury is to work. In order to do your job you do not need any special knowledge or ability. It is enough that you keep an open mind, concentrate on the evidence being presented, use your common sense, and be fair and honest. Finally, you should not be influenced by sympathy or prejudice: it is vital that you be impartial with regard to all people and all ideas.

Many jurors find that it is exciting to learn about this most important system «from the inside», and challenging to deal fairly and thoroughly with the cases they hear. We hope that you, too, find your experience as a juror to be interesting and satisfying.


^ How You Were Chosen

Your name was selected at random from voter registration records and placed on a list of potential jurors. Next, your answers to the Questionnaire for Jurors were evaluated to make sure that you were eligible for jury service and were not exempt from service. To be eligible, you must be over 18 years of age, a citizen of the United States, a resident of the state in which you are to serve as a juror, able to communicate in the English language and if you have been convicted of a felony, you must have had your civil rights restored. People who meet these requirements may be excused from jury service if they have illnesses that would interfere with their ability to do a good job, would suffer great hardship if required to serve, or are unable to serve for some other reason.

You are here because you were found to be eligible for jury duty and were able to serve. You are now part of the «jury pool», the group of people from which trial juries are chosen.


^ 2. Find in the texts above the English equivalents for the following words and expressions:

  1. показания

  2. анкета для присяжных

  3. списки избирателей

  4. предубеждение

  5. судебное разбирательство

  6. вопросы права

  7. фонд, резерв присяжных

  8. сохранить объективность в подходе к делу, вопросу

  9. освобождать от обязанностей присяжного

  10. подходить для службы

  11. заслушивать показания

  12. исключать из состава присяжных

  13. восстанавливать в гражданских правах

  14. тщательно и беспристрастно рассматривать дело

  15. удовлетворять требованиям


^ 3. Explain the meaning of the following words and expressions:

- fellow citizens

- evidence

- to decide the law

- to decide the facts

- courtroom

- common sense

- prejudice

- to be impartial

  1. Answer the following questions:

  1. What is the job of a juror?

  2. What is a job of a judge?

  3. What qualities should a good juror have?

  4. What requirements should one meet to be eligible for jury service?

  5. What are the reasons for a person to be excused from jury service?

  6. What is a jury pool?


Text №2

^ 1. Read the text and say in Russian what is the text about. See the notes:

To dismiss – прекратить дело

To acquit - оправдать

To fail – терпеть неудачу

Delay - задержка

Robbery - грабеж


^ The Criminal Justice System in the USA

The criminal justice system is composed of those agencies which must enforce the laws that society has enacted for its self-protection and preservation. Theoretically, it is an integrated apparatus whose functions are to apprehend, prosecute, convict, sentence, and correct offenders. The US system is federal by its nature, i.e. it consists of three subsystems: state, local and federal criminal justice agencies. The system is composed of three components: police, court and corrections. Each component must contribute to the same goal – the prevention and control of crime and the rehabilitation of offenders. So the effectiveness of the whole system depends on the efficient functioning of each component and their efficient interaction. But at present the criminal justice system doesn’t work successfully. Of the several million serious crimes reported every year to police, ranging from murder to car theft, only one in nine results in a conviction. The rate of solution varies with different crimes. Murder is usually reported, and 86 per cent of all reported murders lead to arrests. Among those arrested, however, only 64 per cent are prosecuted and not more than 43 per cent of the cases prosecuted result in convictions. Of persons prosecuted for murder 19 per cent are convicted of lesser crime and 38 per cent are acquitted or dismissed. In contrast, only 19 per cent of all the burglaries reported to police lead to an arrest. Four out of five arrested are prosecuted and 56 per cent are found guilty. So, for every twelve burglaries reported there is one conviction. Robbery – taking property from a person by force or threat of force – is a crime of violence, dangerous to life and increasing rapidly. But chances of a robber being convicted are small. Only 27 per cent of all robberies lead to an arrest. Of those arrested, 63 per cent are prosecuted, of whom one-half are convicted. Less than two-thirds of the cases in which individuals are charged with murder and robbery are prosecutable. Often the reasons are: insufficient evidence, mistaken identity, unprofessional work of law enforcement agencies, etc. Long delays in trials may lead to dismissals because witnesses die or disappear, evidence is stale or lost. When we consider the performance of correctional agencies, the failure of the criminal justice system becomes quite evident. While there may be only one conviction for every fifty or more serious crimes, only one in four convicted will go to prison, and most who are imprisoned will commit crimes after their release. Thus from among the very small portion of all people who commit serious crimes and are finally imprisoned, the system fails to rehabilitate the majority.


^ 2. Find English equivalents in the text:

- С применением силы или под угрозой силы

- Преступления, регистрируемые ежегодно полицией

- Коэффициент раскрываемости

- Длительные задержки в судебном разбирательстве

- Быть обвиненным в убийстве или грабеже

- Приводить к осуждению

- Предупреждение и борьба с преступлениями.

^ 3. Answer the questions:

  1. What is the structure of the US criminal justice system?

  2. What are the components of the criminal justice system?

  3. Does the criminal justice system function effectively?

  4. Can you give any examples to prove it?

  5. What is necessary for its efficient functioning?


Text №3

  1. Read text and give a brief summary of the text. The following words will help you understand the text:

faithful execution – справедливое выполнение (исполнение)

consent - согласие

to relinquish – сдавать, передавать, уступать (кому-либо)

to harbour - скрывать, затаить

to generate reels and reams - вызвать волнение, вызвать резонанс

to launch a successful career – сделать успешную карьеру

shudder - дрожь, содрогание


^ US Attorneys

The Justice Department is responsible for faithful execution of the laws under the president’s authority. The main administrators of federal law enforcement are ninety-four US attorneys, appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. Unlike federal judges, these appointees serve at the pleasure of the president and are expected to relinquish their positions when the reins of government change hands.

There is a US attorney in each federal judicial district. Their staffs of assistant attorneys vary in size with the amount of litigation in the district. US attorneys have considerable discretion, which makes them powerful political figures in any community. Their decision to prosecute or not affects the wealth, freedom, rights, and reputation of individuals and organizations in the district.

US attorneys are political appointees who often harbour political ambitions. Their position commands media attention and can serve political goals. In 1983 President Reagan appointed Rudolph Giuliani as US attorney for the Southern District of New York (covering a large portion of the New York metropolitan area). Over the next five years, Giuliani notched his briefcase with dozen of successful prosecutions of elected officials, judges, organized crime figures, and Wall Street inside traders. Giuliani’s activities generated reels and reams of favourable press coverage, he even appeared on a Newsweek cover. This kind of public exposure can help a US attorneys launch a successful career in elected office. As a powerful prosecutor or potential opponent, Giuliani’s name must make some politicians shudder.

^ 2. Paraphrase the following expressions:

a) faithful execution of laws

b) under somebody’s authority

c) consent

d) appointee

e) to relinquish

f) amount of litigation

g) to prosecute

h) elected office

i) to harbour political ambitions

j) to launch a career.


^ 3. Answer the questions:

  1. What is an attorney in the US? How is he appointed?

  2. When does an attorney resign?

  3. What does the number of assistant attorneys in federal judicial districts

depend on?

  1. What makes attorneys so important in American communities?

  2. How do attorneys in the US realize their political ambitions?

  3. What example in the text proves that US attorneys harbour political

ambitions?


Text № 4

^ ORIGINS AND FOUNDATIONS OF AMERICAN COURTS

    It can be said that America, as a nation, began in 1781 with the surrender of Lord Cornwallis to George Washington at Yorktown. The social, legal and cultural habits of the new nation, however, were primarily descendants of those in Great Britain, brought to America with each succeeding boatload of colonists.

    Since colonial days, the courts of the United States have taken their own path, developing and changing to suit the needs and social conscience of the new nation. The following history of the American jury system, the concepts of due process, common law, and the adversary process should further broaden the understanding of the American judicial system.

JURIES

    The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees, among other ideas, speedy and public trials, that defendants shall be informed of all charges against them, and a trial by jury. The idea of juries is so closely interwoven with that of the courts, that for most members of the American public, the image of a courtroom means a judge in a black robe, the persuasive legal advocate and the rows of twelve men and women looking on and listening closely to the testimony as it unfolds. Although the United States accounts for 90% of the jury trials held throughout the world today, most of the work conducted in a typical American court takes place without a jury. In Lake County for instance, during 2001, of 189,547 cases disposed of, only 203 were jury trials. The remaining cases were settled out of court, became guilty pleas, or were bench (non-jury) trials.

    Juries determine the facts in a trial, the truth or falsehood of testimony, the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants, and the liabilities in a civil trial. In America, juries are still seen as the best tool for ensuring that the rigidity of the rule of law can be shaped to justice in any specific case.

    Calling citizens to hear disputes has been known throughout history. Modern day juries are the hybrids of Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and European jury customs. English juries have also been a leading influence in shaping the American jury system. The following history of the evolution of the English and American jury system will provide insight and a deeper sense of understanding of this aspect of the criminal justice system.

    England, under Alfred (871-901 A.D.) had a rough system of juries. Representatives of tithings were brought together to decide the questions put before them. This system disintegrated on the death of Alfred, although testimony of witnesses did begin to appear. The Normans left partially intact much of the Saxon court system, which included appeals to the King, legal witnesses and ordeals. They did separate temporal and spiritual courts and appointed "circuit" judges to represent the King across the country. They introduced trial by combat as well.

    Norman England established the foundations of the modern jury system. It slowly developed for those cases in which trial by combat was inapplicable, usually in less important cases. Local citizens were brought to court to rule on matters they had witnessed. During the reign of Henry II, in the 12th Century, the use of juries increased and defendants were commonly offered the choice of trial by jury or combat. About the year 1350, when Edward III was King, the definition of jurors began to shift. And, by the end of the 15th century, a jury was not a body of witnesses but a body that heard the testimony of witnesses and unanimity became necessary to convict a criminal in a criminal trial.

    Between the 15th and 18th Centuries juries evolved more. Trial by "peers" became more real as Knighthood was no longer a requirement for a juror. Expert witnesses began to be used. Exemptions from jury duty were developing, as for Quakers, who could not swear to oaths. Grounds for challenging a juror for cause at common law included the juror having served on the indicting jury, the juror was a serf or servant, the juror has been convicted of certain crimes, the juror was related to one of the parties or the sheriff, or the juror had stated his opinion of the case in public. Eventually defendants were allowed to call witnesses and defense counsel was allowed to cross-examine witnesses.

    During American colonial times, the jury became one of the symbols of rebellion against the English King. A primary complaint of the colonists was that they were being denied the rights granted to all other Englishmen, one of which, was the right to a jury trial as guaranteed by the Magna Carta of 1215. The Magna Carta held several references to trials and juries. That the Common Pleas assemblies shall not follow the court (royal court), but be held "in some certain place", and that juries shall consist of "honest men of the neighborhood" were sample references in the Magna Carta.
    Trial by jury was not completely denied to the colonists, however. Early charters, such as the Virginia Company, which established Jamestown in 1607, included the mention of such rights. In New York, the jury found John Peter Zenger not guilty of libel in 1735 on the grounds that what he had written about the royal governor was true. Virginia jurors had great latitude in deciding verdicts. They could even bring in verdicts for offenses other than the ones for which a defendant was charged. It was the British Vice-Admiralty courts, sitting without juries, which ignited the ire of the colonists.

    In response to these contentions of unfairness and the abrogation of rights, the colonists included in their earliest documents guarantees of the right to trial by jury. The First Congress of American Colonies, in 1765, recommended trials with juries. The First Continental Congress in 1774, declared "that the respective colonies were entitled to the common law of England and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law." In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson listed among the various complaints against King George, that he had "obstructed the administration of justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers", "made judges dependent on his will for appointment for salary", "depriving us in many cases if the benefits of Trial by Jury", and "transporting (defendants) beyond seas for trial". All these, along with other complaints, led to the United States Constitution in 1787, and in 1897 the first ten amendments.

    The jury system is continually changing to meet the needs of modern courts. As the volume of cases filed increases, so does the use of juries. In 2001, the Lake County Circuit Court called 8268 jurors and empanelled 2,712 jurors for trials.

    There are two types of jurors- petit and grand. Petit jurors are sworn to hear evidence in civil and criminal trials and render a verdict. "Petit" jurors are designated as such because fewer people sit on a petit jury than on a grand jury. In Lake County, petit jurors are summoned for one week. Grand jurors, on the other hand, have the duty to receive complaints and accusations in criminal cases, hear the evidence presented by the State and find bills of indictment in cases where they are satisfied there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. A grand jury is composed of 16 citizens, and at least 12 members must be present at each session before the grand jury may transact business. Grand jurors in Lake County serve one day a week, for a period of 4 months.

    Jury duty is a right and a responsibility of American citizenship. Juries serve several important purposes: (1) they serve as an arbiter regarding the conflict of facts and evidence as presented at criminal and civil trials; (2) they provide a means by which community values and sentiments are injected into the judicial process; and (3) they help to increase the public's acceptance of legal decisions. Jury duty, along with voting, is one of the primary means by which the average citizen participates in our government. Developing a historical appreciation for the role of juries contributes to willingness and ability of citizens to serve as impartial jurors when called to judge their peers. Use of juries is just one thread running through the historical development of the American judicial system.

^ DUE PROCESS

    Along with trial by jury, the guarantees of due process of law are among the firmest bulwarks of our liberty. The value of these guarantees are shown by how our national and state governments have retained them, in strength through each change of status, from colonies to nation, from territory to state.

    Daniel Webster defined due process as "a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds on inquiry, and renders judgment only after a trial". It is a course of legal proceedings according to the rules and principles established by custom and constitution for the enforcement and protection of the rights of private citizens. To give this established course of legal proceedings a valid and competent tribunal is the duty of the courts.

    There are two essential elements of due process:

    1. Notice shall be given to a person that matters concerning him are before the court;

    2. That person shall be given an opportunity to be heard and defend himself in an orderly proceeding adapted to the nature of the case.

    These mean that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property or any right granted him by statute unless the matter involved shall first be adjudicated in a trial or hearing conducted according to the rules for judicial proceedings, and no matter shall be adjudicated without the opportunity for a hearing.

    Due process has been a concern of men determined to establish justice in governments for at least seven and one-half centuries. The Magna Carta, signed by King John of England in 1215, is one of the first historical documents of men demanding rights of their government.

    The elements of due process are contained in the Constitution of the United States (Amendment V and Amendment XIV, Section 1), as well as in the State of Illinois Constitution (most recently, 1970 Constitution, Article I).

    Due process is one of our basic American Constitutional rights. For our democratic government to survive and prosper and for their own protection, citizens must understand and value these rights. Aside from all else "due process" means fundamental fairness, and this is important for a judicial system that purports to function with integrity and honor.

^ COMMON LAW

    Common law is court-made law, and differs from statutory law which is made by legislative bodies. Court-made law develops and is passed on to future courts through the decisions and opinions of judges hearing cases. Common law derives its authority from the uses and customs of time, or from the judgment or decrees of courts recognizing and enforcing such uses and customs.

    Common Law is especially recognized as the ancient unwritten law of England. In the 11th and 12th Centuries' the English King resolved disputes with the aid of advisors at his court. Formal judicial courts began to develop during the 16th and 17th Centuries, and the judges of these courts studied earlier decisions for guidance. Established decisions came to be called the common law. This form of judicial lawmaking is still used in the England, and the United States, who adopted this policy from the English.

^ DUAL SYSTEM

    American courts are organized into a dual, or two-part structure. There is both a Federal and State Courts system, each state having its own, unique system. The historical basis for this structure was the concern shown by the original colonies as to relinquishing sovereignty to a central government, and the strong thread of state rights which runs through United States history. A practical basis for a dual system exists as well- a two-tiered structure allows for jurisdictional distinctions.

    Jurisdictional differences can be based on geography, case type, or case format. Federal Courts have jurisdiction over: (1) cases in which the United States is a party; (2) cases involving foreign officials; (3) cases involving parties from different states- in some circumstances; (4) cases involving the United States Constitution; and (5) cases involving patents, copyrights and bankruptcies.

    State Courts share jurisdiction in Items 3 and 4, which may then be appealed to Federal Courts, if the parties are not satisfied with the original decision.

    Within courts jurisdictional differences exist, as well. These are more fully explained later in this book.

^ ADVERSARY SYSTEM

    The development and maturation of the adversary system as it exists in American courts today can be traced to the rising importance of the jury during medieval England. As the jury replaced trial by combat, it also changed from a body of witnesses to an impartial body of fact-finders. As the jury became neutral, the parties to a case adopted the role of adversaries.

    The term "adversary" implies two conflicting parties. In American courts those two parties are the plaintiff and defendant. These parties present to the Court all the evidence and testimony they can find, in the most persuasive manner allowable, in order to achieve a decision favorable to their interests. The attorneys serve as advocates, and the judge sits as a neutral "referee."

    In all Courts, each side is bound by many rules as to how the case may be conducted. These rules are meant to ensure fair and consistent treatment for all parties, in all cases, across all situations. This adherence to rules and procedures is a hallmark of the adversary system, unlike the inquisitorial system, for example, in which few technical rules of evidence exist. The inquisitorial approach is less sensitive to claims concerning individual rights. An inquisitorial style is less likely to serve as a check on government powers, the role American Courts play in our system of checks and balances.

    The function of the American Courts are to inquire into the truth of the matter and establish guilt or innocence. And that all defendants in United States Courts are considered innocent until proven guilty, is one of the most important fundamentals of the American judicial system. The adversary system, allowing each side equal access to a neutral body is the method by which our courts uphold this ideal.


^ Grammar

Present Simple  (Present Indefinite)

Настоящее Простое.

Как образуется:

I форма глагола. Данная форма используется во всех лицах и числах, кроме единственного числа третьего лица: тогда прибавляются окончания – s, -es.

I work We work

You work You work

He They work

She } works

It

Вопросительная и отрицательная формы (кроме глагола to be) образуются с помощью вспомогательного глагола do , does (в 3-м лице ед.ч.).

Do I work? Do we work?

^ Do you work? Do you work?

he Do they work?

Does { she work?

It

Отрицательная форма

I do not (don’t) work We do not (don’t) wok

You do not (don’t) wok You do not (don’t) wok

He They do not (don’t) work

She } does not (doesn’t) work

It

Когда употребляется:

1. Действие происходит с определенной периодичностью. Употребляется с такими наречиями как always (всегда), rarely (редко), often (часто), usually (обычно), never (никогда) и т.д., кроме того, со словом every (every day, every month, every year и т.д.)

She never listens to me. - Она никогда меня не слушает.

I always go abroad in summer. - Летом я всегда езжу заграницу.

He goes to the theatre every weekend. - Он ходит в театр каждые выходные.

2^ . Действие научно доказан.

Water boils at 100 degrees. - Вода кипит при 100 градусах.

3. Описывается последовательность действий.

I get up, wash my hands and face, have breakfast etc. - Я встаю, умываюсь, завтракаю и т.д.

Past Simple - Прошедшее Простое

Как образуется:

II форма глагола, т.е. глагол+окончание –ed (правильные глаголы), либо II форма неправильного глагола.

^ To work – worked to tell - told

Вопросительная и отрицательная форма образуются с помощью вспомогательного глагола «did».

Did I work? Did we work?

Did you work? Did you work?

^ He Did they work?

Did { she } work?

it

I (you, he, she, it, we, they) didn’t work.


Когда употребляется:

1. Наличие обстоятельств времени yesterday (вчера), last (прошедший, прошлый) или иных.

He visited doctor last week. - На прошлой неделе он был у врача.

I met him when I studied at the University. - Я встретила его, когда училась в университете.

^ 2. Действие произошло в прошлом без каких-либо условий.

I knew you would come. - Я знала, что ты придешь.

3. Последовательность действий.

He took the taxi, asked to stop at the Time Square, looked through the window etc. - Он взял такси, попросил остановить на Тайм Сквер, посмотрел в окно и т.д.

Future Simple - Будущее Простое

Как образуется:

Will (shall) + I форма глагола.

I (you, he, she, it, we, they) will work

Вопросительная форма образуется путем инверсии

^ Will I (you, he, she, it, we, they) work?

Отрицательная форма

I (you, he, she, it, we, they) will not (won’t) work.

Когда употребляется:

Действие произойдет в будущем.

Употребляется с временными маркерами tomorrow, next, либо указан срок.

I will write to you tomorrow. - Напишу тебе завтра.

He will visit us in 3 weeks. - Он навестит нас через 3 недели.


^ Употребление и перевод времен Simple Tenses (Active)

Время

Модели сказуемых

Выражает

Переводится

Примеры



Present



V (без to) для всех лиц кроме 3-го лица ед.ч.

V + -s(-es)

Действие, обычно повторяющееся, не ограниченное временными рамками



Настоящим временем

I

You

We

They


He

She

It

interview witnesses and interrogate criminals at our practice


interviews witnesses and interrogate criminals at our practice



Past



V + -ed

Однократное или повторяющееся действие, имевшее место в прошлом

Прошедшим временем совершенного или несовершенного вида

I

You

He

She

It

We

They

interviewed witnesses and interrogated criminals at our practice last year



Future



shall

will + V (без to)

Однократное или повторяющееся действие, которое произойдет в будущем

Будущем временем совершенного или несовершенного вида


I


You

He

She

It

They


shall



interview witnesses and interrogate criminals at our practice next year



will
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9



Похожие:



Если Вам понравился наш сайт, Вы можеть разместить кнопку на своём сайте или блоге:
refdt.ru


©refdt.ru 2000-2013
условием копирования является указание активной ссылки
обратиться к администрации
refdt.ru