Step 1. Selection of the Jury.

Step 2. Opening Statements. The lawyers for each side will discuss their views of the case that you are to hear and will also present a general picture of what they intend to prove about the case. What the lawyers say in their opening statements is not evidence and, therefore, does not help prove their cases.

Step 3. Presentation of Evidence. All parties are entitled to present evidence. The testimony of witnesses who testify at trial is evidence. Evidence may also take the form of physical exhibits, such as a gun or a photograph. On occasion, the written testimony of people not able to attend the trial may also be evidence in the cases you will hear.

Many things you will see and hear during the trial are not evidence. For example, what the lawyers say in their opening and closing statements is not evidence. Physical exhibits offered by the lawyers, but not admitted by the judge, are also to be disregarded, as is testimony that the judge orders stricken off the record.

Many times during the trial the lawyers may make objections to evidence presented by the other side or to questions asked by the other lawyer. Lawyers are allowed to object to these things when they consider them improper under the laws of evidence. It is up to the judge to decide whether each objection was valid or invalid, and whether, therefore, the evidence can be admitted or the question allowed. If the objection was valid, the judge will sustain the objection. If the objection was not valid, the judge will overrule the objection. These rulings do not reflect the judge's opinion of the case or whether the judge favours or does not favour the evidence or the question to which there has been an objection.

It is your duty as a juror to decide the weight or importance of evidence or testimony allowed by the judge. You are also the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses, that is, of whether their testimony is believable. In considering credibility, you may take into account the witnesses' opportunity and ability to observe the events about which they are testifying, their memory and manner while testifying, the reasonableness of their testimony when considered in the light of all the other evidence in the case, their possible bias or prejudice, and any other factors that bear on the believability of the testimony or on the importance to be given that testimony.

Step 4. The Instructions. Following presentation of all the evidence, the judge instructs the jury on the laws that are to guide the jury in their deliberations on a verdict. A copy of the instructions will be sent to the jury room for the use of jurors during their deliberations. All documents or physical objects that have been received into evidence will also be sent to the jury room.

Step 5. Closing Arguments. The lawyers in the closing arguments summarize the case from their point of view. They may discuss the evidence that has been presented or comment on the credibility of witnesses. The lawyers may also discuss any of the judge's instructions that they feel are of special importance to their case. These arguments are not evidence.

Step 6. Jury Deliberation. The jury retires to the jury room to conduct the deliberations on the verdict in the case they have just heard. The jury first elects a foreman who will see to it that discussion is conducted in a sensible and orderly fashion, that all issues are fully and fairly discussed, and that every juror is given a fair chance to participate.

When a verdict has been reached, the foreman signs it and informs the bailiff. The jury returns to the courtroom, where the foreman presents the verdict. The judge then discharges the jury from the case.

 

Exercise 1: Find in the text above the English equivalents for the following words and expressions:

1. вступительная речь
2. заключительная речь
3. надежность свидетеля
4. зачитать вердикт
5. правомерный протест
6. принять, поддержать протест
7. вычеркнуть из протокола
8. удалиться в комнату для заседания присяжных
9. совещание присяжных
10. старшина присяжных
11. свидетельские показания
12. отклонить протест

 

Exercise 2: Render the following text into English paying special attention to the words and expressions given in bold type:

 

Прения сторон

Прежде чем исследованные в предшествующей стадии судебного разбирательства материалы дела будут анализироваться в совещании присяжных, они обсуждаются в процессе судебных прений, где государственный обвинитель и защитник, используя профессиональные знания и навыки, восстанавливают связь между доказательствами, позволяя судьям от общества сделать правильный выбор между обвинением и оправданием подсудимого.

Позиции обвинения и защиты в суде присяжных строятся не только на основе принципа состязательности, но и на основе принципа презумпции невиновности: невиновность подсудимого предполагается, а виновность доказывается обвинителем.

Судья вправе прервать речь, возражение или замечание стороны, если в них содержатся:

- сведения, не имеющие прямого отношения к делу;

- обстоятельства, оскорбительные для чьей-либо чести и достоинства;

- данные, не проверенные в ходе судебного следствия;

- ссылки на исключенные из дела доказательства;

- сведения о прежней судимости обвиняемого;

- иные обстоятельства, влияющие на объективность присяжных;

Судья в своем напутственном слове объясняет присяжным заседателям, что при вынесении вердикта они должны:

- руководствоваться здравым смыслом;

- руководствоваться принципом презумпции невиновности, согласно которому подсудимый не обязан доказывать свою невиновность: бремя доказывания вины подсудимого лежит на государственном обвинителе;

- оценивать исследованные в суде доказательства (показания подсудимого, потерпевшего, свидетелей, заключения экспертов и др.) в их совокупности, согласовывая их одно с другим;

- не принимать во внимание доказательства, вычеркнутые из протокола;

- не воспринимать как доказательства доводы, прозвучавшие в речах сторон.

 

Exercise 3: Translate the following text into Russian:

Verdict

Verdict, in law, is the pronouncement of the jury upon matters of fact submitted to them for deliberation and determination. In civil cases, verdicts may be either general or special. A general verdict is one in which the jury pronounces generally upon all the issues, in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant. A special verdict is one in which the jury reviews the facts, but leaves to the court any decisions on questions of law arising from those facts. As a rule, however, special verdicts are not applicable to criminal cases, and in most instances the jury renders a general verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty."

Generally, the jury's verdict must be unanimous. In a number of states, however, the condition of unanimity has been modified, and verdicts can consequently be rendered by a designated majority of the jury. All jury members must be present in court when the verdict is given.

In criminal cases a verdict of acquittal is conclusive upon the prosecution (the state), thus precluding double jeopardy, but the defendant may be tried again in the event the jury cannot reach a decision. The defendant must be present when the verdict is rendered.

 

Exercise 4: Match the following English expressions with their Russian equivalents:

1) final verdict 2) general verdict 3) special verdict 4) to attain/reach/return/bring in a verdict 5) unanimous verdict 6) verdict of acquittal 7) verdict of conviction 8) verdict of guilty 9) verdict of non-guilty 10) wrong verdict 11) to agree to/upon a verdict

a) вердикт о виновности b) вердикт о невиновности c) вердикт об оправдании d) вердикт об осуждении e) вынести вердикт f) генеральный вердикт, вердикт по существу дела g) окончательный вердикт h) ошибочный вердикт i) прийти к соглашению относительно вердикта j) вердикт, вынесенный единогласно k) специальный вердикт (решение присяжными частного вопроса)

 

Exercise 5: Render the following text into English paying special attention to the words and expressions given in bold type:

Вердиктом является решение коллегии присяжных заседателей по поставленным перед ней вопросам, включая основной вопрос о виновности подсудимого.

Присяжные выносят вердикт

- без постороннего влияния, удалившись в совещательную комнату;

- открытым голосованием, причем никто не вправе воздержаться от принятия решения;

- путем единогласного решения, или большинством голосов;

- ответы даются по каждому вопросу отдельно.

Руководит совещанием присяжных старшина, который последовательно ставит на обсуждение подлежащие разрешению вопросы, проводит голосование, ведет подсчет голосов.

UNIT 6. THE VALUE OF JURIES

 

Text 1: FALLING BASTION?

How valuable is the jury in modern times? This is a very controversial question. On the one hand the jury has much ancient history behind it (though some scholars have argued it is more mythology than true history) as a bastion of the liberty of the subject against repressive governments. To a minor degree the jury can, and occasionally still does, play this role.

The jury system is the ordinary citizen's link with the legal process. It is supposed to safeguard individual liberty and justice because a commonsense decision on the facts either to punish or acquit is taken by fellow citizens rather than by professionals. But the system has been criticized because of its high acquittal rates; allegedly unsuitable or subjective jurors; intimidation of jurors; and administrative reason for saving time and costs.

Throughout the world the use of jury trials is limited. The French Revolution initiated trial by jury in continental Europe, and this spread to other civil-law countries, but only for criminal trials. In the 20^th century jury trials have been abandoned or eliminated in most civil-law countries. Jury trials survive primarily in the common-law countries, above all, the United States. Even there and in England jury trial has declined in favor of trial by judge. Many critics urge the curtailment or elimination of the jury trial as an amateurish and inefficient method of determining a legal issue. Critics would like to replace the jury with panels of experts in relevant fields. But, after widespread opposition to such proposals, it seems as though the jury will continue in its present form.

 

Exercise 1: Translate the following quotations: