11. Выразите свое согласие/несогласие со следующими утверждениями, используя ту или иную речевую модель.

Models:

I am totally opposed to… – Категорически не согласен с …

I feel (that) it is true – я считаю, это правильно

1. No principles of justice govern a criminal trial.

2. The defendant is accused in court.

3. The defendant never pleads guilty to the charges against him.

4. There is no need for trial if the defendant pleads guilty.

5. Twelve jurors are sworn to try the case.

6. The barrister for the prosecution must tell the jury what the case is all about.

7. The jurors must give evidence according to certain rules.

8. If a juror knows a defendant or any of the witnesses in the case he may try the case.

9. Witnesses may talk about what other people may have told them.

10. If the judge agrees that there is no case, he’ll direct the jury to find the defendant not guilty.

12. Прочитайте определения и скажите, о каких словах из текста идет речь.

	information given in a court of law in order to prove that someone is guilty
	the official in control of a court who decides how criminals should be punished
	the process or act of bringing a charge against someone for a crime, or being judged for a crime in a court of law
	the things that are said in a court of law to prove that someone is not guilty of a crime
	someone who sees a crime or an accident and can describe what happened
	the person in a court of law who has been accused of doing something illegal
	an official in charge of the records of a court
	a building or a room where all the information concerning a crime is given so that it can be judged
	a group of 12 ordinary people who listens to details of a case in court and decides whether someone is guilty or not
	a legal process in which a court of law examines a case to decide whether someone is guilty of a crime
	a question or problem that will be dealt with by a law court.

13. Передайте содержание текста на английском языке и скажите, какой тип судопроизводства существует в России. Докажите свою точку зрения.

Различие между состязательной (adversarial) и инквизиционной (inquisitorial) системами правосудия состоит в особенностях положения сторон и в роли судьи. При состязательном правосудии обвинение и защита находятся в равном положении по отношению к суду. Судья нейтрален. Он – арбитр между сторонами обвинения и защиты. Судья не отыскивает истину по делу и не исследует доказательства, не допрашивает свидетелей и других участников процесса. В системе состязательного правосудия это обязанности сторон. Стороны должны сами представить доказательства, выставить своих свидетелей. Функции же суда в состязательном процессе состоят в том, чтобы обеспечить соблюдение сторонами правил судопроизводства, выслушать обе стороны и принять решение.

Правосудие, построенное по инквизиционному типу, предполагает, что суд принимает на себя некоторые обязанности сторон. Судья не выступает в роли арбитра между сторонами. Он занимает активную позицию, допрашивает свидетелей. По уголовным делам судья выступает на стороне обвинения.

14. Работа в парах. Объясните коллеге, а) почему в ходе показаний свидетеля в суде сторонам по делу нельзя задавать наводящие вопросы; б) почему свидетель должен сообщать только те сведения, очевидцем которых он был. Выскажите свою точку зрения в аудитории. Пользуйтесь логико-грамматическими лексическими единицами.

In my opinion…	По моему мнению…
I’m sure (that)…	Я уверен, что…
On the one hand…	С одной стороны,…
On the other hand…	С другой стороны,…
I don’t think it’s reasonable to believe that…	Я не думаю, что есть основания считать, что…
Thus	Таким образом, итак
That’s why	Поэтому
As a result	В результате
In fact	На самом деле
In most cases	В большинстве случаев
Besides…	Кроме того,…
What is more…	Более того…
All right, you win	Ну что ж, Вы правы (Признаю Вашу правоту)

15. Работа в мини-группах. Прочитайте судебное дело. Одна группа студентов разыгрывает перекрестный допрос подсудимых (F. R.) и свидетелей (Джамиля и служащих таможни) стороной обвинения, другая – стороной защиты. Используйте выражения, принятые при допросе в суде.

Your Honour	– Ваша честь (обращение к судье на судебном процессе)
Objection	– Возражение, протест
That’s a leading question	– Наводящий вопрос
Objection, Your Honour, council is leading the witness	– Я протестую, Ваша честь, обвинитель (защитник) задает наводящий вопрос
That’s hearsay	– Это показания с чужих слов (Свидетель не был очевидцем событий)
That’s relevance	– Относящееся к делу высказывание
Objection, Your Honour, this question is irrelevant to the case	– Я протестую, Ваша честь, этот вопрос не относится к делу

F and R were both convicted of conspiracy to import and supply heroin from Pakistan. The case was that an informer, Jamil, with the approval of Customs officers arranged with R to import heroin, which was replaced by harmless powder once it arrived in England. Both F and R met Jamil at a railway café in Birmingham and discussed the procedure of obtaining samples of “heroin” for resale. When F picked up a bag containing the replaced powder he and R were arrested. They made untruthful accounts not realizing that their movements had been monitored and later when R was told he had been under surveillance he made admissions. In his defence F said that he thought that there was a medical drug in the bag, and blamed R. R said that he was on legitimate business and knew nothing of any drug and was supervising the delivery of lawful goods. He made admissions because that was what the Customs officer wanted to hear and he wanted to be freed as soon as possible.

UNIT 3. DEFENCE EVIDENCE, CLOSING SPEECHES AND JUDGE’S SUMMING-UP

1. Образуйте сравнительную и превосходную степень от наречий.

directly	–
personally	–
usually	–
carefully	–
separately	–

2. Подчеркните парные союзы. Переведите предложения.

1. He’s lived in both Britain and America.

2. She can both speak and write Japanese.

3. She’s the kind of person you either love or hate.

4. The equipment is neither accurate nor safe.

5. Her ring is twice as big as mine.

3. Образуйте порядковые числительные от количественных числительных.

one –	five –	six –
thirty –	ninety –	a hundred –
a million –	twelve –	two thousand –

4. Переведите словосочетания и составьте с ними предложения.

defence evidence, prosecution evidence, to give evidence, to support evidence, to tailor evidence, false evidence, to comment on the evidence, important parts of evidence, stronger evidence, hearsay evidence, reliable evidence, to follow evidence, to hear the evidence, to offer no further evidence.

5. Определите, какие формы инфинитива выражают а) действие, одновременное с действием сказуемого; б) действие в процессе его развития одновременно с действием сказуемого; в) действие, которое предшествует действию, выраженному сказуемым; г) действие, продолжившееся в течение определенного периода времени и предшествовавшее действию, выраженному глаголом-сказуемым.

To have been supported, to have been hold, to be deciding, to have been allowed, to be tailoring, to have been demonstrating, to happen, to have broken, to have been charged, to be preparing, to be made, to have been called, to have been commenting, to have been proved, to have been considering, to have been reflected.

6. Переведите предложения с оборотом «Complex Subject». Подчеркните сложное подлежащее в предложениях.

1. Judge’s summing-up seems to be fair and balanced.

2. The prosecution was expected to have charged the defendant.

3. The lawyer is known to support the case of the defendant.

4. The defendant seemed to have pled guilty.

5. The judge is likely to know a good deal about the defendant.

6. He is expected to be more lenient towards a defendant of good character.

7. Прочитайте и переведите текст.

TEXT

DEFENCE EVIDENCE, CLOSING SPEECHES AND JUDGE’S SUMMING-UP

The defence evidence is the fifth stage of a criminal trial. The defendant may give evidence, and his lawyer can call any witnesses to support his case. The procedure of giving evidence is the same both for the prosecution and for the defence – examination-in-chief (direct examination), cross-examination.

A defendant does not have to give evidence, but the law is that if he does not, the jury may “draw inferences” from his failure to do so. In other words, they may hold it against him when deciding whether he is guilty. Normally, when a defendant gives evidence he must be called as the first defence witness. This is because he is entitled to sit in court throughout the trial, and it would not be right to allow him to call witnesses, and then tailor his evidence to the evidence they have given.

The cross-examination of a defendant can be the highlight of a criminal trial. This is the prosecution’s chance to demonstrate the case against him very directly and personally.

What happens if a witness (whether for the prosecution or the defence) breaks his oath and tells lies? Any person who gives false evidence in court about an important matter may in theory be charged with the criminal offence of perjury but the prosecution for perjury is rare. People are usually charged with perjury only when they have conspired together in a carefully prepared plan to give false evidence.

The prosecution and defence closing speeches are the next stages of a criminal trial. The prosecution barrister will usually make a final speech to the jury explaining how, in the light of all the evidence which has been called, the prosecution says that their case is proved. In their closing speeches, barristers are allowed to comment on the evidence.

Judge’s summing-up is the seventh stage of a criminal trial. There are two main parts to every summing-up:

• The judge must first tell the jury what the law is. This includes giving them “legal directions” that the prosecution must prove the case so that they are sure that the defendant is guilty. He must also give directions as to what the prosecution must prove in order to make them sure. If there are several defendants charged with a number of different offences, the judge must ensure that the jury understands what the law is in each case. If there are two or more charges, the judge must tell the jury to consider the charges separately, each on its own merits, and make a separate decision in each case. It is possible for the jury to find the defendant guilty of all charges, or guilty of theft, not guilty of assault, etc.

• The judge must remind the jury of the important parts of evidence, including the evidence called by the defence. He must do his best to give a fair and balanced summary of the facts. This does not mean that he should try to make the prosecution and the defence cases sound equally strong. Where it is clear that the evidence for one side is much stronger than the evidence for the other, a fair summing-up will reflect that.