Law and order

  The party bringing the suit is called the ...1...; the party being sued is called the ...2... There may be many ...3... or many...4... in the same case.

  The plaintiff starts the lawsuit by filing a paper called a ...5..., in which the case against the defendant is stated. The next paper filed is usually the ...6... , in which the defendant disputes what the plaintiff has said in the complaint. The defendant may also feel that there has been a wrong committed by the plaintiff, in which case a ...7... will be filed along with the answer. It is up to the plaintiff to prove the case against the defendant. In each civil case the judge tells the jury the extent to which the plaintiff must prove the case. This is called the plaintiff’s ...8..., a burden that the plaintiff must meet in order to win. In most civil cases the plaintiff’s burden is to prove the case by a ...9... , that is, that the plaintiff’s version of what happened in the case is more probably true than not true.

  Jury verdicts do not need to be unanimous in civil cases. Only ten jurors need to agree upon a verdict if there are 12 jurors: five must agree if there are six jurors.

__________________________________________________________

  Preponderance of evidence;   burden of proof;   counterclaim;  complaint;   answer;   defendant;   plaintiff  

 

  Criminal cases.   A criminal case is brought by the state or by a city or county against a person or persons accused of having committed a crime. The state, city, or county is called the...1...; the accused person is called ...2... The charge against the defendant is called an...3... or ...4.... The defendant has pleaded not guilty and you should presume the defendant’s innocence throughout the entire trial unless the plaintiff proves the defendant guilty. The plaintiff’s burden of proof is greayer in a criminal case than in a civil case. In each criminal case you hear the judge will tell  you all the elements of the crime that the plaintiff must prove; the plaintiff must prove each of these element...5... before the defendant can be found guilty.

  In criminal cases the verdict must be unanimous, that is all jurors must agree that the defendant is guilty in order to overcome the presumption of innocence.

________________________________________________________

  Beyond reasonable doubt;   complaint;   information;   plaintiff; presumption of innocence

 

TASK 9. Give English equivalents for the following words and expressions.

 

1) подать иск;

2) начать (возбудить)  дело;

3) арендатор; 

4)  показания; 

5) судебное разбирательство;

6) истец; 

7) совершить  преступление;

8) признать виновным;  

9)  заслушать  показания; 

10) обвиняемый  человек;

11) преобладание (превосходство) свидетельских показаний;

12) обвинен в  преступлении;

13) заявить о  невиновности;

14) уголовное дело;

15) гражданское дело

 

TASK 10. Read the following extracts from  The Week 29 May 1999 and make a summary. Complete sentences below.

 

An Englishman’s  Right  to Trial by  Jury

 

  Jack Straw’s decision to limit the right of defendants  to trial by jury is seen by many as a threat to one of our basic liberties. How fundamental has the role of the jury been in our legal system and why has the Government decided to tamper with it?

 

Isn’t the right to trial by jury enshrined in Magna Carte?

 

  No. Although Magna Carte says “no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of his peers”, this probably refers to trial by a judge, not a jury. Jurors were used at the time but, far from being impartial adjudicators, their job was to seek out suspected miscreants and present them for trial before the King’s itinerant justices. Often, the defendant’s fate would then be determined by “ordeal”: he was innocent if able to endure various forms of torture. By the 15^th century, trial by jury had replaced trial by ordeal, but it was only in the 18-th century that the crucial aspects of the present system – for instance, the requirement that jury should not sit on a case of which they have prior knowledge – were established.

 

Did the jury system take root in other countries?

 

  After the French Revolution it was introduced in France as a symbol of popular government. Napoleon went on to establish it throughout Europe, but it did not survive. Many states got rid of it in the 19^th century; Germany abandoned it in 1924, and France never restored it after it was abolished in the Forties during the German occupation. The system still prevails in many former British colonies, pre-eminently in the US where the jury trial is widely used in both criminal and civil cases. Meanwhile Russia, Spain and Japan are thinking of introducing juries as a way of improving their justice systems.

 

Can any English defendant elect to have trial by jury?

 

  England is the only country where the defendant is given the right to choose, though that right is limited. Very serious crimes such as murder or rape can only be tried by a judge and jury, while “summary” offences such as motoring offences and drunkenness can only be heard by magistrates. But  there is a range of intermediate crimes – so called “either-way offences” such as burglary, shoplifting and assault, where the accused can opt for a jury. About 20% do so. Straw now proposes to give magistrates the power to determine the trial venue, subject to the defendant’s right of appeal to a judge in chambers.

 
 

1. Before the 15 century jurors’ job was to......

2. By the 15^th century trial by jury had replaced......

3. The crucial aspects of the present British system were established.........

4. The present system took root in France .....

5. But it didn’t survive in......, and it still prevails in......

6. The right of the defendant to choose trial by jury is limited only ......

7. Such offences as.....can be heard by magistrates.

8. The accused can also opt for a jury when......

 

TASK 11. Complete sentences below to summarize the text.

 

Why does the Government want to change the system?

 

  Partly because it hopes to save 70 million pounds a year. It is nearly six times as expensive to arrange a jury trial (average cost 13,500 pounds) than a trial in a magistrates’ court (average cost 2,500 pounds). But it is also, says the Government, a question of principle. As a 1993 report by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice argued, it is just as wrong in principle to give defendants a choice of court as it would be to give a choice of judge. No other country does so; even in Scotland the decision  in either-way cases is made by the prosecutor. The English system is also open to abuse, with defendants using expensive option of a jury trial to persuade the prosecution to accept a plea to a less serious charge; or simply to put off the day of conviction and sentence. (It is usually more pleasant to serve a jail sentence on remand). Indeed, of the 18,500 defendants last year who took the jury option, 90% changed their pleas to guilty – often at the door of the court – so wasting court time and causing delay for defendants.

 

1. The Government wants to change the system because it is very expensive to......

2. According to the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, it is wrong to...

 
 

TASK 12. Choose English equivalents for the Russian words in brackets. See the words below.

 

Isn’t it also true that juries are more lenient?

 

  In some ways, yes. Juries (1. оправдывают, освобождают) about 40% of defendants, magistrates a mere 25%. On the other hand, once a defendant (2. признает себя виновным)  - as is the case with the large majority of those who (3. выбирают) jury trial – Crown Courts work to their disadvantage. Defendants in either-way cases are three times more likely to get (4. тюремный приговор) in a Crown Court than in a magistrates’, and custodial sentences in the Crown Court are about two-and a-half times as long as for (5. схожих дел) dealt with by magistrates.

 

  Won’t there still be a right to appeal for a jury trial?

 

  Yes, but in deciding whether to permit (1. обвиняемому) to go before a jury, magistrates are now to consider (2. влияние осуждения) on the defendant’s reputation, especially where it is a first offence. This, say critics, will lead to (3. двух-уровневой, двух-ярусной) system of justice. Giving preferential treatment to those without previous convictions (4. ограничивает права) of those most in need of protection – those who, if convicted, may (5. столкнуться с более суровым приговором). And a middle-class magistrate is likely to consider the reputation of, say, a white businessman, to be of greater concern than that of, say, a poor, ill-educated black man.

  Face a harsher sentence; restricts; two-tier; restricts the rights; the accused; the impact of a conviction; a custodial sentence;  similar cases;   opt for; is found guilty; acquit.