Jury Trial in USA

合集下载

Lesson_4__THE_JURY_SYSTEM

I. THE ROLE OF THE JURY
The jury’s function during a trial is to decide the facts of the case.
陪审团在审判中的作用是对案件事实进行判断。案件事实进行判断。
It is the judge’s function, inter alia, judge’s to explain the law to the jury… The judge conducts the trial, 法官的职责之一就是向陪审 decides any legal issues that 团解释法律… 团解释法律… arise during the trial and controls the evidence the jury is 法官主持庭审，法官主持庭审，裁断庭审中 allowed to hear.
III. TRIAL BY JURY
A jury trial is a trial of a lawsuit
or criminal prosecution in which the case is presented to a jury and the factual questions and the final judgment are determined by a jury. This is distinguished from a “court trial” trial” in which the judge decides factual as well as legal questions, and makes the final judgment.
A.陪审员审查 A.陪审员审查
陪审员名单上的全体陪审员是随机选出的，是随机选出的，任何诉讼方都能对其进行审查，都能对其进行审查，从而选出陪审员。出陪审员。

Jury Trial

The Significance of a Jury Trial:Pros and consIn countries where jury trials are common, juries are often seen as an important check against state power. Other common assertions about the benefits of trial by jury is that it provides a means of interjecting community norms and values into judicial proceedings and that it legitimizes the law by providing opportunities for citizens to validate criminal statutes in their application to specific trials. Many also believe that a jury is likely to provide a more sympathetic hearing, or a fairer one, to a party who is not part of the government – or other establishment interest – than would representatives of the state. This last point may be disputed. For example, in highly emotional cases, such as child rape, the jury may be tempted to convict based on personal feelings rather than on conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In France, former attorney, then later minister of Justice Robert Badinter, remarked about jury trials in France that they were like "riding a ship into a storm," because they are much less predictable than bench trials.Another issue with jury trials is the potential for jurors to be swayed by prejudice, including racial considerations. An infamous case was the 1992 trial in the Rodney King case in California, in which white police officers were acquitted of excessive force in the violent beating of a black man by a jury consisting mostly of whites without any black jurors, despite an incriminating videotape of the action. This led to widespread questioning about the case and riots ensued.The positive belief about jury trials in the UK and the U.S. contrasts with popular belief in many other nations, in which it is considered bizarre and risky for a person's fate to be put into the hands of untrained laymen.Jury trials in multi-cultural countries with a history of ethnic tensions may be problematic, and lead to juries being unduly biased and partial. This is one of the reasons why both India and Pakistan abolished jury trials soon after independence. Indeed, in these countries, a jury trial is seen as a failing of some foreign legal system rather than an advantage; this is despite the fact that both nations are common law countries.A major issue in jury trials is the secretive nature of the process. While proponents may say that secrecy allows the jury to remain impartial by protecting it from undue pressure or attention, opponents contend that this prevents there from being a transparent trial. The fact that juries do not often have to give a reason for their verdict is also criticized, since opponents argue it is unfair for a person to be deprived of life, liberty or property without being told why it is being done so. In contrast where there is a decision by a judge or a bench, they are required to give often detailed reason of both fact and law as to why such a decision is given.One issue that has been raised is the ability of a jury to fully understand statistical or scientific evidence. It has been said that the expectation of jury members as to the explanatory power of scientific evidence has been raised by television in what is known as the CSI effect. In at least one English trial the misuse or misunderstanding or mis-presentation by the Crown prosecution of statistics has led to wrongful conviction.AustraliaThe Australian Constitution provides that: "80. The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes.”The first trial by jury in the colony of New South Wales was held in April 1841.Challenging potential jurorsPeremptory challenges are usually based on the hunches of the counsels and no reason is needed to use them. All Australian states allow for peremptory challenges in jury selection, however, the number of challenges granted to the counsels in each state are not all the same. Until 1987 New South Wales had twenty peremptory challenges for each side where the offence was murder, and eight for all other cases. In 1987 this was lowered to three peremptory challenges per side, the same amount allowed in South Australia. Eight peremptory challenges are allowed for both counsels for all offences in Queensland. Victoria, Tasmania and the Northern Territory allow for six. Western Australia allows five peremptory challenges per side, according to section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA).Majority and unanimous verdicts in criminal trialsIn Australia majority verdicts are allowed in South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and New South Wales, while Queensland and the ACT require unanimous verdicts. Since 1927 South Australia has permitted majority verdicts of 11:1, and 10:1 or 9:1 where the jury has been reduced, in criminal trials if a unanimous verdict cannot be reached in four hours. They are accepted in all cases except for "guilty" verdicts where the defendant is on trial for murder or treason. Victoria has accepted majority verdicts with the same conditions since 1994, though deliberations must go on for six hours before a majority verdict can be made. Western Australia accepted majority verdicts in 1957 for all trials except where the crime is murder or has a life sentence. A 10:2 verdict is accepted. Majority verdicts of 10:2 have been allowed in Tasmania since 1936 for all cases except murder and treason if a unanimous decision has not been made within two hours. Since 1943 verdicts of “not guilty” for murder and treason have also been included, but must be discussed for six hours. The Northern Territory has allowed majority verdicts of 10:2, 10:1 and 9:1 since 1963 and does not discriminate between cases whether the charge is murder or not. Deliberation must go for at least six hoursbefore delivering a majority verdict. Majority verdicts were introduced in New South Wales in 2005 (see Jury Act 1977 (NSW), s 55F).ARGUMENTS FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE JURYThe arguments which can be advanced in support of the case for the abolition of the jury in criminal trials can be separated, we believe, into four categories. First, criticisms are made of the jury which cannot be denied, such as juries are costly. Such arguments can be met with the response that these features are disadvantages which are outweighed by the advantages of jury trial. Second, some critics look at features of the jury system, such as the jury’s ability to bend the law without breaking it, as a serious flaw in the jury system, while others, including this Commission, consider it to be a significant advantage. Third, there are criticisms which can, we believe, be refuted. Finally, there is a class of criticism directed solely cat the use of juries in long and complex cases.The chief criticisms of the jury are, first, that it is inefficient: and, second, that it is ineffective. In other words, it is claimed that the jury cannot, for a number of reasons, properly fulfill its role. One reason put forward for the incompetence of juries is the very democratisation which we consider so crucial to its continued acceptability. It is said that the average intelligence of jurors has declined as the ownership of property is no longer a qualification.More specifically, it is said that jurors are now less likely to understand financial matters and therefore less able to appreciate the evidence in fraud trials. Similarly, it is said that, since they have no scientific knowledge, they cannot understand scientific evidence. It is patently not the case that intelligence is the sole preserve of those who possess material wealth. Neither can it be said that the essential concepts of fraud are beyond the grasp of all but a few members of the community. Moreover, complex evidence in any case should be presented in a way that can be adequately understood by any member of the community regardless of experience or qualifications.Another reason put forward to demonstrate the jury’s alleged incompetence is found in more general misconceptions about particular types of evidence or classes of witnesses. For example, it is feared that jurors, not being equipped with research results on the unreliability of much evidence, are unable to assess the reliability of eyewitnesses. One study has shown:The crucial factor affecting a juror’s evaluation was the amount of confidence displayed by the witness. Jurors were inclined to believe witnesses who were highly confident more than those who had less confidence.Another criticism has been made that juries generally are unable to ask questions of witnesses.The jury is, of course, an expensive method of trial. Not only must the twelve jurors be paid but so must the others, often more than thirty, who form the pool from which the jury is selected. The jurors, moreover, while they are serving, are kept from their ordinaryoccupations and responsibilities. In addition, court personnel are employed to administer the jury system at all stages. This is one criticism which, we believe, falls into the category of “well worth it”. Indeed, it could be argued that the jury system is no more expensive than most of the suggested alternatives. A panel of judges, on judicial salaries, for example, might work through the evidence more quickly than a jury can, but would ultimately prove more expensive because they would tend to deliberate at greater length and would have to prepare written reasons for decision. Expert assessors, even if a panel of only two or three were required, would need to be paid a very much higher fee than lay jurors currently receive.ARGUMENTS FOR THE RETENTION OF THE JURYJuries are traditionally used to assess and determine the facts in a criminal trial because they are considered to be able to do this better than a judge. It is believed that juries are the best judges of the credibility of witnesses and that they are best able to accurately characterise behaviour as reasonable or unreasonable and so on. This is so because they bring to their task a range of backgrounds and experiences of necessity far broader than that possessed by a single judge.It is the mix of different persons with different backgrounds and psychological traits in the jury room that produces the desired results. There is both interaction among jurors andcounter action of their biases and prejudices.As well as being best suited to determine facts, the jury is able, unlike the judge, to give weight to the broad equities in the individual case. While a judge is bound by precedent and st atute, the jury can take into account the “human” factor. It is in this way that each jury verdict can bring to bear the broad community conscience. Where precedent and statute set down the law in a general sense, the jury can adjust the law to the merits of each case.The jury represents the conscience of the community from which it is drawn.The jury acts as a two-way link between the community and the legal system. One of its functions, arguably the most important function it performs, is to make sure that the legal system does not become distinct from, and alien to, the community. Individual citizens have, however briefly, a direct influence con the process of criminal justice and its values. The use of juries keeps the criminal justice system in step with the standards of ordinary people. Because “they represent current ethical conventions” juries “are a constraint on legalism, arbitrariness and bureaucracy”.The other important function is to ensure that community support for the criminal justice system is maintained.The jury is an effective institution for the determination of guilt. it has the added benefit of possessing the ability to do justice in the particular case. The jury system is, moreover, an important link between the community and the criminal justice system. It ensures that the criminal justice system meets minimum standards of fairness and openness in its operation and decision-making, and that it continues to be broadly acceptable to the community and to accused people. The participation of laypeople in the system itself validates the administration of justice and, more generally, incorporates democratic values into that system.。

TheTrialThatRockedtheWorld高级英语第三版第一册第四课翻译和词汇

Lesson‎4 The Trial That Rocked‎the World震撼世界的审‎判A buzz ran throug‎h the crowd as I took my place in the packed‎court on that swelte‎r ing July day in 1925. The counse‎l for my defenc‎e was the famous‎crimin‎a l lawyer‎Claren‎c e Darrow‎.Leadin‎g counse‎l for the prosec‎u tion was Willia‎m Jennin‎g s Bryan, the silver‎-tongue‎d orator‎, three times Democr‎a tic nomine‎e for Presid‎e nt of the United‎States‎,and leader‎of the fundam‎e ntali‎s t moveme‎n t that had brough‎t about my trial.在一九二五年‎七月的那个酷‎热日子里，当我在挤得水‎泄不通的法庭‎里就位时，人群中响起一‎阵嘁嘁喳喳的‎议论声。

我的辩护人是‎著名刑事辩护‎律师克拉伦斯‎.达罗。

担任主控官的‎则是能说会道‎的演说家威廉‎.詹宁斯.布莱恩，他曾三次被民‎主党提名为美‎国总统候选人‎，而且还是导致‎我这次受审的‎基督教原教旨‎主义运动的领‎导人。

A few weeks before‎I had been an unknow‎n school‎-teache‎r in Dayton‎, a little‎town in the mounta‎i ns of Tennes‎s ee. Now I was involv‎e d in a trial report‎e d the world over. Seated‎in court, ready to testif‎y on my behalf‎,were a dozen distin‎g uishe‎d profes‎s ors and scient‎i sts, led by Profes‎s or Kirtle‎y Mather‎of Harvar‎d Univer‎s ity. More than 100 report‎e rs were on hand, and even radio announ‎c er s, who for the first time in histor‎y were to broadc‎a st a jury trial. "Don't worry, son, we'll show them a few tricks‎," Darrow‎had whispe‎r ed throwi‎n g a reassu‎r ing arm round my should‎e r as we were waitin‎g for the court to open.几个星期之前‎，我还只是田纳‎西州山区小镇‎戴顿的一名默‎默无闻的中学‎教员，而现在我却成‎了一次举世瞩‎目的庭审活动‎的当事人。

Jury trial

THE ROLE OF JURY TRIALS
In most common law jurisdictions, the jury is responsible for finding the facts of the case, Jury is responsible for listening to a dispute, evaluating the evidence presented, deciding on the facts, and making a decision in accordance with the rules of law and their jury instructions. Typically, the jury only judges guilt or a verdict of not guilty, but the actual penalty is set by the judge.

Thank you!
JURY TRIAL IN UNITED STATES

In the United States, every person accused of a crime punishable by incarceration(监禁） for more than six months has a constitutional right to a trial by jury.
23 citizens Major responsibilities: determine whether the defendant is the suspect of being guilty and whether to prosecute(起诉）the defendant.

US jury trial 美国陪审团制度

United StatesMain article: Trial by jury in the United StatesIn the United States every person accused of a crime punishable by incarceration for more than six months has a constitutional right to a trial by jury, which arises in federal court from Article Three of the United States Constitution, which states in part, "The Trial of all Crimes...shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed." The right was expanded with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." Both provisions were made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Most states' constitutions also grant the right of trial by jury in lesser criminal matters, though most have abrogated that right in offenses punishable by fine only. The Supreme Court has ruled that if imprisonment is for six months or less, trial by jury is not required, meaning a state may choose whether or not to permit trial by jury in such cases.[28]Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, if the defendant is entitled to a jury trial, he may waive his right to have a jury, but both the government (prosecution) and court must consent to the waiver.In the cases Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.296 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant has a right to a jury trial not only on the question of guilt or innocence, but any fact used to increase the defendant's sentence beyond the maximum otherwise allowed by statutes or sentencing guidelines. This invalidated the procedure in many states and the federal courts that allowed sentencing enhancement based on "a preponderance of evidence", where enhancement could be based on the judge's findings alone. Depending upon the state a jury must be unanimous for either a guilty or not guilty decision. A hung jury results in the defendants release, however charges against the defendant are not dropped and can be reinstated if the state so chooses.Jurors in some states are selected through voter registration and drivers' license lists. A form is sent to prospective jurors to pre-qualify them by asking the recipient to answer questions about citizenship, disabilities, ability to understand the English language, and whether they have any conditions that would excuse them from being a juror. If they are deemed qualified, a summons is issued.It has been speculated that jury trials encourage harsh punishment in the United States.[29]English common law and the United States Constitution recognize the right to a jury trial to be a fundamental civil liberty or civil right that allows the accused to choose whether to be judged by judges or a jury.In America, it is understood that Juries usually weigh the evidence and testimony to determine questions of fact, while judges usually rule on questions of law, although the dissenting justices of the Supreme Court case Sparf et al. v. U.S. 156 U.S. 51 (1895), generally considered the pivotal case concerning the rights and powers of the jury, declared: “It is our deep and settled conviction, confirmed by a re-examination of the authorities … that the jury, upon the general issue of guilty or not guilty in a criminal case, have the right, as well as the power, to decide, according to their own judgment and consciences, all questions, whether of law or of fact, involved in that issue.” Jury determination of questions of law, sometimes called jury nullification, cannot be overturned by a judge if doing so would violate legal protections against double jeopardy.[30] Although a judge can throw out a guilty verdict if it was not supported by the evidence, a jurist has no authority to override a verdict that favors a defendant.[31]It was established in Bushel's Case that a judge cannot order the jury to convict, no matter how strong the evidence is. In civil cases, a special verdict can be given, but in criminal cases, a general verdict is rendered, because requiring a special verdict could apply judicial pressure to the jury, and because of the jury's historic function of tempering rules of law by common sense brought to bear upon the facts of a specific case. For this reason, Justice Black and Justice Douglas indicated their disapproval of special interrogatories even in civil cases.[32]There has been much debate about the advantages and disadvantages of the jury system, the competence or lack thereof of jurors as fact-finders, and the uniformity or capriciousness of the justice they administer.[33] The jury has been described as "an exciting and gallant experiment in the conduct of serious human affairs."[34]As fact-finders, juries are expected to fulfill the role of lie detector.[35]However, not all cases are eligible for jury trials. In most US states, there is no right to a jury trial in family law actions not involving a termination of parental rights, such as divorce and custody modifications.[36][37] Only eleven states allow juries in any aspect of divorce litigation (Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin).[36]Mostof these limit the right to a jury to try issues regarding grounds or entitlement for divorce only. Texas provides jury trial rights most broadly, including even the right to a jury trial on questions regarding child custody.[36][37]But those who charged with a criminal offense, breach of contract or federal offence have a Constitutional right to a trial by jury.[36]。

大学英语精读第三册Unit5

Lesson Five Twelve Angry Men (Part One)I．T eaching Objectives:After learning this unit, students are supposed to:1. get familiar with the rules of word formation ;2. get familiar with some grammatical points;3. retell the text as a whole;4. have a thorough understanding of the whole text: Twelve Angry Men5. get a list of the new words and expressions and be able to use them freely in writing and daily conversation;II.Listening and speaking activities1.Listen to the recording of the text and fill in the blanks about the main ideas of the article.2. Talk about the judicial system in America and discuss the questions on the text.III. Reading Comprehension and Language Activities1.Pre-reading discussions:1)Why doesn’t the author give names to the characters in the drama? Is this play merely a conflictamong people or is it also a conflict of ideas?2)What was the evidence presented at the court against the boy?3)What would have happened to the boy if he had been found guilty?2 Background knowledgeAbout the author﹡Reginald Rose is a native Ne w Y orker, best known as a writer for television. The Twelve Angry Men was written in 1954 based on his experience as a juror. The play was turned into a movie in 1957 with Henry Fonda starring as No8.The present text isbased on of that movie. with much abridgement. What distinguished Rose’s teleplays was their direct preoccupation with social and political issues.﹡Useful legal termsJudiciary system: judge, 12 jurors, lawyer, plaintiff, defendant, public prosecutorThe jury trial is an important component in the U.S. judicial system. The jury consists of 12 jurors, selected at random, agreed on by the lawyers of the two sides, who will, after hearing all the evidenced and cross-examination and careful deliberation, give a verdict of guilty or not guilty. Today no jury would be made up entirely of men any more. Women now serve on juries as much as men.﹡JuryJury: is a group of up to 12 people, called “Jurors” whose duty it is to listen to the evidence given in a court trial and decide whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. The decision is called a “verdict”. If the verdict is not guilty, the accused is set free or acquitted; if the verdict is guilty, the judge will give the sentence.﹡Court System•Jurisdiction司法: by the Highest Court, the High Court, the Middle Court, the district courts, thelower courts•Legislation立法: by the Congress, hearings听证会•①The accused is deemed innocent until and unless proved “ guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt.•②In many jurisdictions, the majority of a jury is not sufficient to find a defendant guilty ofa felony.•③A trial does not aim at discovering who commit a particular crime, but rather the innocence or guilt of the accused.•④The system is not infallible and can be quite precarious.﹡A criminal court• A criminal court is a court of law which hears cases brought by the state against a person or a corporation which has violated a criminal law enacted by the legislature.﹡Police•Scotland Y ard 伦敦警察厅•NYPD, LAPD police department 警察局•FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation•Sheriff (美)县治安官•Police officer•区分：Security guard 保安, Firefighters, fire brigade,•Court-martial 军事法庭, international tribunal 国际法庭3.About the textTwelve Angry Men was adapted by Reginald Roes in1950s. It is about an 18-year-old boy who is on trial for murder, accused of knifing his father to death .The twelve jurors retire to the jury room, having been admonished that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It turned out that in the first voting .all the 11 jurors vote for conviction. Except No.8, who feels there is a reasonable doubt, which prevents a quick verdict. The juror8 resolutely and painstakingly explains his reasons for doing that. During the heated deliberations, evidence that felt rock-solid is revealed to be dubious and the hidden preconceptions and assumptions of the jurors are revealed. At last, juror8 convinces every man on the jury that the charge to the defendant was not conclusively proved to convict him.4.Pre-class Questions• 1. Why do you think the author gives “The Twelve Angry Men” as the title of the play?• 2. Try to analyze the characteristics of each juror and witness.• 3. Try to retell the story of killing in your own words.5. Language Points﹡Phrases；call for : to want or need a particular action, behavior ,quality etc.要求get at : to see to be saying sth that other people don’t completely understand.了解表明lay sb out :to knock sb . down 把….打昏mix up :confuse 弄混spill out :to pour out散出yell sth o ut: 喊出in charge of :负责in the charge of : 由谁负责﹡A boy charged with murdering his father（p1）•Notice that we say“ to be charged with”, but “to be accused of”.•Notice also that “to charge” means to state officially that someone is guilty of a crime.﹡Now you fellows can handle this any way you want.(P2)any way (both words stressed): by any method; in any manner•anyway (stressed on the first syllable): in spite of that; in any case•--I’m going ______, no matter what you say.•--Y ou can do it _________ yo u want. I don’t care. I just want the result.•--Well, _______, it’s too late to do anything now.•--He is desperate. He has to find that money _________.﹡Preliminary (a.& n.) P3: happening at the beginning of an event, often as a form of preparation •--The Congress will start ~ hearings soon. (预备听政会)•--Our team got beaten in the ~ rounds of the competition. (头几个回合)•--May I make a few ~ remarks before we start the interview. (开场白)•②noun: usually plural forms <preliminaries>•--without preliminaries (开门见山地)•~ talks on the nuclear issues of North Korea began yesterday.• A background check is normally a ~ to a presidential nomination.•~s, quarter finals, semi-finals, and the final﹡Vote•If we want to discuss it first then vote, that’s one way or we can vote right now to see how we stand.•Mean: One way for us to do is to discuss first then vote. The other way for us to do is to vote at once to find out the position of jurors whether we agree or not, or we need further discussion on this case.﹡Maybe we can all get out of here. P5•Background: He is eager to get out of this jury room because it is hot and besides he has a ticket for a football game for that evening which he does not want to miss.•If everyone agrees that the boy is guilty, then they can take the verdict to the court and get the whole thing over and done with right﹡Slum Ghetto犹太贫民区Hip-hop: a form of pop culture starting among young black people in the US in the 1980s, including rap music and graffiti art 嬉哈乐(Hippie:young people in the 1960s and 70s rejecting conventional ways留长发、吸毒)Rap: a type of music in which words are not sung but are spoken in a rapid, rhythmic way 说唱乐Latina: a style mixing elements from Latin America 拉丁风格﹡What do you think that trial cost? (P20)•According to the U.S. law any citizen has a right to a proper trial, and if he can’t pay, the trial will be paid by the government. That’s why No. 10 here reminds No.8 angrily that the boy has cost a lot of public money.﹡Since when is dishonesty a group characteristic? (p21)•From what time is dishonesty regarded as a characteristic of a group? It is unfair to think that all the people who live in the slum are not honest. It a prejudice.﹡otherwise (P26)①differently (adv.)--Y ou are presumed to be innocent until proved otherwise. (proved not to be)--I was unable to attend the conference because I was otherwise engaged. (busy with something else)②apart from that--The soup was cold, but otherwise the meal was excellent.③if not--Y ou’d better go now, otherwise you’ll miss the train.﹡Eyewitness OneThe Old Man•Let’s see the old man who lived on the second floor under the room where the murder took .•Clu e: loud noises “I’m going to kill you” in the upstairs apartment A second later, he heard a body falling.•The old man’s guess: It sounded like a fight•The old man’s seeing: He saw the kid running down the stair and out of the house﹡Refute反驳(P29)•Refute an allegation, an argument or a theory: proving it wrong or untrue•It’s the kind of rumor that it is easy to ~.•Refute an allegation or accusation: denying it is true•He is quick to ~ any suggestion of intellectual snobbery.•区分: refuse, decline, reject, object﹡Eyewitness Two The Woman•She is lying in bed. She can’t sleep. It’s hot..•And right across the street, she sees the kid stick his knife into his father’s chest. Look, she has known the kid all his life. And she swore she saw him do it.﹡Spot One•She looks out the window.•They proved in court that at night if you look through the windows of an el train when the lights are out, you can see what is happening on the other side.﹡Spot Two•Right across the street she sees the kid stick the knife into his father. She’s known him all his life.His window is right across from hers, across the EL tracks. And she saw him do it.﹡el train(p34): elevated train•Fly-past(美), flyover(英)立交桥•Highway•Expressway•Subway(美), tube(英)•Tunnel, Cross-strait tunnel,•Maglev: magnetically levitated train﹡Provoke (P46): deliberately annoy someone and try to make him behave aggressivelySomething provokes a reaction: causing itHe started beating me when I was about to go to bed but I didn't do anything to ~ him.The destruction of the mosque has ~d anger throughout the Muslim world.Her insensitive speech provoked an angry reaction.The students tried to provoke the teacher into losing her temper. (made her lose her temper by provoking her)His refusal to answer provoked me to shout at him﹡Boy’ s Background(No.8) I don’t think it was a very strong motive. This boy has been hit so many times that violence is practically a normal state of affairs with him. I just can’s see two slaps in the face would have provoked him into committing murder.﹡The boy•(No.4) This boy--- Let’s say he’s the product of a slum and a broken home. We can’t help that.We’re not here to explain why slums make criminal.•We are here to decide if he is innocent or guilty.﹡Sensitive vs. sensiblesensitive:①(~ + to) easily influence or changed by sth•--sensitive to cold/heat --a sensitive skin②( ~ + about) have feelings that are easily hurt/offendedDon’t mention that she’s put on weight, she’s very sensitive about it.sensible: reasonable; showing good sensea sensible man She is very sensible of the trouble.It would be sensible to get a second opinion before taking any further action.•It is very sensible of you to take his advice.•﹡Allege (P60)•断言，宣称，硬说•The newspaper ~s th e mayor’s guilt *. He is ~d to have demanded a ransom of one million.•作为理由，借口或论据等提出•He ~d illness as a reason for not going to work.•Alleged: an alleged thief窃贼嫌疑an alleged friend所谓的朋友﹡Ok, let’s get to the point (p 65)•Let’s get to the point: let’s talk about the most important part of the problem.•Admitted buying: We can say “admit to doing sth”•Linglu has admitted stealing the books from Changjin.﹡Admit (p65) : confess①admit (followed by gerund)--Will you admit breaking the window? = Would you admit that you have broken the window?②admit (followed by infinitive)--We all admit him to be foolish.--A fuel leak is now admitted to have been the cause of the trouble.③other collocations--He admitted his guilt/crime. --He admitted to the murder/shoplifting.﹡You pulled a real bright trick (P76)Her tears were just a trick to deceive others.（诡计）Our children used to play tricks on us.（捉弄）card tricks （扑克牌魔术）magic tricks （魔术）Don’t play dirty tricks on me.（卑鄙手段）How’s trick? (c olloq) （混得如何）﹡Ballot• A ballot(paper) is a system of voting or an occasion when you vote on a piece of paper on to write your decision.•Eg. Representatives were elected by ballot. Eg. They decide to hold a ballot.•Eg. Let’s put it to the ballot.﹡We’ll s tay here and talk it out.(p84)talk it out: discuss it thoroughly until we reach a final decision.Out: thoroughly, completely, so as to be finishedCompare:•I had to sit out that boring performance.•Please hear me out. *Time is running out.* The fire went out.•They seemed to be determined to fight it out In-Class Translation Exercises•Let’s play the match out.1.Clean out the room. 2I’m tired out.3I had to sit out that boring performance. 4 Please hear me out.5The oil in the heater is running out. 6The wind blew the candles out.7The lease is already out. 8 He will be back before the month is out.9Let’s try and sort out this mess.6. Post-discussionWhat was the evidence against the boy? How did it fall piece by piece through the discussion? 7Exercises: II Vocabulary 1.Translation3. Translation:1)Our company was heavily in debt when he took over. We owed the bank about 10 million.2)Lao Song, I owe you an apology. The other day I really behaved like a fool.3)People know every well that they owe everything they have today to the reform polity.4)Why did their boat invade our territorial waters? They owe us an explanation at least.5)He claimed to have two Ph. D. degrees from two universities.6)Both sides claimed to have won the competition.7)The Taipings took the city finally. But the battle claimed one of their best leaders. to have won thecompetition.8)These patients won the claim of 50 million dollars for their damaged health.9)This otherwise wonderful manager is a womanizer.10)Her otherwise perfect family only has one problem. Her little daughter is handicapped.11)The Congress will vote on this new tax law sometimes next week. The exact time has not yet beenfixed.12)Big business will vote for that party. They won’t vote otherwise.13)After a heated discussion, they finally put it to a vote. The voter was 3to 4 in Bush’s favor.14)John Kennedy was the first Catholic in U.S. history to be voted into the White House.15)In the stock market, people often vote with their feet.16)The problems we now have remind us that social justice is just as important as economic prosperity.17)That day she forgot to remind her husband to get his car fixed.18)The story reminded me of many terrible things that happened in the so-called Cultural Revolution. 4. Fill in the blanks with the appropriate word:1) down 2) in 3)on, off 4) out 5) out 6) out 7) over 8) over 9)away, with 10) with without11) into, in 12) withIII Grammar4. Translate sentences using gerunds:1)The old lady resents being referred to as busybody. Or: The old lady does not like being called abusybody.2)“I appreciate your offering to go and tell the parents about the accident.”, the principal told me.3)The cheat thought being dressed like a policeman would make us trust him. But he looked like aswindler just the same.4)It’s important to know what it is that you don’t know, and asking questions is the way.5)Foreign journalists in the country often complain about being suspected of spying.6)I reviewed my lesson s by first reading the texts over and then trying to retell them in my own words.7)There are many ways to get data into a computer. Procession the data is accomplished within thecomputer itself.8)Being a guest on a talk show requires wit, eloquence, and insight.9)Today, by using telecommunications equipment, CEOs can preside over meetings without leavingfrom their desks.10)I can understand your hopping form job to job in search of something you really love doing, butyou’re rejecting such a generous offer-no!6. Complete each of the following sentences with the most likely answer:1-10 d a c a b b c d d a 11-15 b a c c bAssignment1. Summarize the reasonable doubts the jurors raise within 200 words.2. Give the character of each juror.3. Do the key exerciseslesson5 new wordsabstain 弃权（不投票）alleged （未经证实而）陈述的argument 论据evidenceassume 假想，假设suppose, presumebackyard 后院ballot 无记名投票制breeding-ground 某事物（通常指有害事物）的滋生地burden 负担，重负loadcall for 形势所迫，必须立即采取行动characteristic n. 与众不同的特征peculiaritycharge 指责，控告，指控coincidence 巧合的事chancecollection-box 募捐箱conduct 控制，管理，经营manage, directcoroner 验尸官counselor 律师lawyercourt 法院cross-examination 盘问，详讯，严诘n.customary 合乎习俗的，依照习俗的，习惯上的usual, habitual defendant 被告，被告人accused, offenderdishonesty 不老实，不诚实cheatingdiverge v. 分叉，岔开；分歧elevated 好的，高尚的dignified, nobleexcitable 易激动的，易兴奋的eyewitness 目击者fantastic 了不起的，极好的wonderful, splendid, marvelousfilthy 污秽的，肮脏的muckyfingerprint 指纹first-degree murder 一级谋杀罪flick v. （用轻而快的动作）移动某物flimsy 软弱无力的，不足信的weak, feeble；不结实的，易损坏的foreman 陪审团团长forgery 伪造罪get at v. 意指，暗指grown-up 成年人guilty 有罪的，犯罪的handy 便于拿取的，便于使用的，有用的honestly 的确reallyhumph 哼innocent 无辜的，无罪的，清白的junk 无用或者无价值的东西rubbishlay sb. out 打晕某人liar 说谎者mix up v. 混淆motive 动机，原因cause26 27 28 29 30394041424311。

美国ADR机制学习

（世界）ADR机制的主要模式
（1）协商。协商是双方争议解决的最简易方式，因为没有第三方的参加，争议双方在一起协商，可以有律师做代理也可以没有律师参与。（2）调解（Mediation）。调解是指第三者应争议双方当事人的请求,通过尽量协调双方的分歧,而不是作出有约束力的决定的方式解决当事人之间争议的方法。调解可以说是ADR中最为常见和最重要的一种形式,是所有其他形式的ADR 仲裁(Arbitration)。仲裁是根据当事人的合意，把基于一定的法律关系而发生的纠纷，委托给法院以外的第三方进行裁决的纠纷解决方法。仲裁是一种传统的、民间性替代性纠纷解决机制，它主要的优点在于非公开性，并且当事人可以控制整个仲裁程序，而无须受定型化的法庭规则的制约。
第3页/共12页
第7页/共12页
微型审判（Mini-trial）
小型审理虽名为审理，但并不是通常意义的法庭审理，它实质上是一种精心设计的模拟诉讼。微型审判是以权利和利益为基础的混合程序。
在微型审判中，通常由一个法官或一个中立人士主持，一般没有证人，证据规则比较宽松。当事人要亲自听取各方律师对案件的意见，然后在中立人士的帮助下协商解决纠纷。如果协商失败，可以继续审判程序。
(4)简易陪审团审判（Summ ar y Jur y Trial ） (5)早期中立评估（Early neutral evaluation） (6)微型审判（Mini-trial）
第4页/共12页
美国的“ADR”机制和运行
●附设在法院的ADR (court annexed ADR) 法简易院陪附审设团调审解判、以法及院早附期设中调立解评---估仲程裁序、微型审判、 ●美国民间的ADR 仲间 AD裁仲R是裁。双组方织当—事—人即以美仲国裁仲协裁议协委会托解美决国纠全纷国的性民的间民调达成停和是解指，富从有而经解验决的纠第纷三。人居中说和、协助当事人 “ 一法聘庭名请强退法制休官执法”行官是的,由指判他在决主争。持议（一双加个方利非请福正求尼式下亚的州,程法）序庭通,作常出指由定

Jury Trials 陪审团审判

Jury Trials 陪审团审判Jury TrialsIn a jury trial, the outcome of a case is decided by a panel of one’s peers. In the criminal context, the right to a jury trial is provided by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Specifically, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury. In the civil context, a jury trial is not guaranteed but rather it must be properly demanded during the pre-trial phase of litigation.A jury is usually comprised of twelve people whose role is to sift through the evidence presented in a court case and resolve any factual discrepancies. In other words, the jury sits as the fact finder in a court case. The jury is selected from a pool of potential jurors during a phase of trial called “voir dire”during which attorneys on both sides of the case question the potential jurors under oath in order to determine their ability to serve as impartial jurors.At the beginning of a court case, the presiding judge will give thejury some preliminary instructions about their role as fact finder, but the majority of instructions will be given after all of the evidence has been presented. Once the evidence is closed, the jury must apply the law as instructed by the judge to the facts of the case. The jury must also resolve any factual discrepancies and reach a unanimous verdict.Jurors serve different functions in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, they typically must determine liability by a standard of a preponderance of the evidence. In the event that a jury makes a determination of liability, then the jury must determine whether or not an award of damages is warranted. In the criminal context, a jury must determine guilt by a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a higher standard than the one used in civil cases. Also, in criminal cases, the jury’s role typically concludes with the determination of guilt because sentencing (except in death penalty cases) is determined by the presiding judge.In both the criminal and civil arenas, jury trials are comprised of complicated evidentiary procedures, legal burdens and court rules. Additionally, more often than not, the stakes are high. Contact a qualified attorney today to protect your interests.。

jury_system

many as twelve. Often a jury trial lasts only a day or two, but some can go much longer. After hearing the evidence and often jury instructions from the judge, the group retires for deliberation, to consider a verdict.
A number of alternate jurors who will be used if
a juror is unable to continue his duties. Jurors receive compensation of $25/day plus housing and meals. No knowledge required to be jury
Selection of the Jury
Anyone who is listed on the electoral register between the age of 18 and 70 is eligible for jury service. Ineligible persons are members of the judiciary and others involved in the justice system, e.g. barristers and solicitors, the clergy ,the mentally ill. The panel is selected at random and any party to the proceedings can inspect the panel from which the jurors will be chosen.

如何注册美国临床试验数据库（ClinicalTrials）？

如何注册美国临床试验数据库（ClinicalTrials）？来源于：MRW医学科研⼯作站、LinkLab临床试验注册制度，是指在临床试验实施前就在公共数据库公开试验设计信息，并跟踪和报告试验结果。

这不仅可以增加试验信息的透明度、减少发表偏倚，⽽且有利于保障试验质量、增加试验的规范性和结果的可信度，已经成为当今临床试验发展的主流趋势。

1简介是美国国⽴医学图书馆(NML)与美国⾷品与药物管理局(FDA)在1997年开发，于2002年2⽉正式运⾏的数据库。

其主旨有⼆：①向医疗卫⽣⼈员、患者和社会⼤众提供临床试验的查询服务；②向机构和医学科研⼈员提供临床试验的注册服务。

作为世界上最重要的临床试验注册机构之⼀，其注册和查询临床试验均为免费，被誉为公开化、国际化临床试验注册的典范。

2注册的流程3试验⽅案信息单元及其填写要求注册⼀个完整⽅案需要填写的内容⼏乎涵盖了临床试验的所有⽅⾯。

⼤致包括研究⽅案名称和背景资料等12部分内容。

在临床试验过程中，随着试验的进展以及研究⽅案的完善，相关内容亦需及时更新。

所有显⽰界⾯及填写语⾔为英⽂，必填单元在本⽂中以 * 标出。

研究⽅案名称和背景资料①各类标识号(Identity, ID)包括：ID(Organization's Unique Protocol ID)，即临床试验主办⽅赋予研究⽅案的唯⼀识别号，常为登陆账号；次级ID(Secondary ID)，指研究⽅案的其他识别号码，如⽅案在其他机构的登记号、美国国⽴卫⽣研究所(National Institute of Health, NIH)授权号等。

②研究名称包括：①精简名(Brief Title)*，⽤于公开的名称；②缩写名(Acronym)，即⽅案名称的⾸字母缩写，如精简名为Women's Health Initiative(妇⼥卫⽣运动)，缩写名则为WHI；③官⽅名(Official Title)，即主要研究者或主办⽅给予研究⽅案的名称。

陪审团制度（TheJurySystem）

陪审团制度（The Jury System）The jury system refers to the system that a certain number of voting citizens participate in deciding whether to prosecute the suspect and to decide the case. A jury has the distinction between a grand jury and a small jury. A grand jury may hear several cases during its term, while a minor jury is a case.A small jury is usually composed of 6-12 people. According to American law, every adult citizen of the United States has the duty to serve as a juror. However, a person who is under 18 years of age, who is not living in the mainland, who has no knowledge of English and hearing impairment, who has criminal record, is not eligible to serve as a juror. Jurors are selected by court to draw out a number of residents with state identity cards as candidates. After that, each of them had to fill out a questionnaire about himself. The court notice, and then to the court for questioning and the selection of.Popularly speaking, juries are eligible citizens who have been randomly selected to be brought together and not allowed to contact the outside world during the trial. They are responsible for voting on a defendant: first, whether to prosecute; two, whether guilty?. In the United States, juries may be used in criminal cases and in some civil cases (mainly civil cases). In Britain and Commonwealth countries, juries are no longer used in civil cases. As is known to all, the jury's basic function is to determine the facts of the case. In a jury proceeding, the judge does not recognize the fact that the basic function of the judge is to control the proceedings and to apply the law in accordance with the facts held by the jury.For cases requiring jury trials, the first step is to select jurors and form juries. Jurors are often very complex, and jury selection is a highly skilled work. The jury's selection is under the auspices of the presiding judge. The judge's assistant randomly extracts the list of candidates from the local voter registration manual. Judges determine the number of candidates for initial jurors according to the circumstances of the case, and sometimes the number of candidates can be as many as two or three.The jury's selection was made public. When selecting, both the judge and both attorneys should be present at the court. When the judges begin screening candidates, they should brief the candidate on the merits. With the consent of the judge, the others may sit in the court. The candidate of the jury determines the seat number in the court by drawing lots. The number of candidates for a jury is very important because the jurors are chosen in numerical order. To determine the number of candidates in accordance with the number of seated, according to the instructions of the assistant judge, fill out the questionnaire in the help of assistant judges. The specific cases are different, and the questionnaire will also investigate the problems. On environmental litigation cases, the questionnaire may have you on environmental protection and industrial development to see, you are affected by environmental pollution violations "; on tobacco litigation cases, the questionnaire may have" do you smoke "," your friends have no patient and smoking related diseases "; in AIDS related litigation, there may be" how do you see this problem on the questionnaire on homosexuality. The questionnaire will also cover the question of the relationship between candidates andlawyers in the case, such as whether or not to know which lawyer, whom to counsel, and so on. The relationship between candidates and witnesses is also an important issue to be investigated. The questionnaire will list the names of witnesses to appear in the subsequent suits. Judges and attorneys will screen candidates based on these findings. A judge may also direct a greeting to a candidate, such as asking whether a candidate has any factors that will affect him or her and make a fair decision.The judge will remove the person who does not meet the legal requirements from the jury candidate. For example, non US citizens, criminal records, no voting rights, etc.. The candidate may also submit to the judge a reason not suitable for serving as a juror in the case, requesting not to serve as a juror, such as suffering from illness, etc.. For these reasons, the corresponding evidence is required to be proved, and may be allowed to exit after the judge's consent. Since the jury is a duty of the citizen, the candidate shall not withdraw from the court when the judge does not agree to it. According to the survey, most Americans are reluctant to serve as jurors, and the main reasons are the delay, the impact on their work and life. Although there are subsidies as jurors, the amount is small, usually between $8 and $15.The judges reject the non qualified candidates, and the next procedure is to screen candidates from both sides of the bar.A lawyer may reject or reserve a candidate by number according to his own needs. In general cases, a lawyer may not exercise more than four or five times the veto power, but for special cases, it may be 6 or 7 times, up to 10 times, and the exercise of the veto power is decided by the judge. The composition ofthe jury determines the case of victory.In the case of the famous Rodney King v. Losangeles police, the trial resulted in the prosecution losing the case because of the formation of a jury in favor of the defendant. However, the principle of screening is simple and will not be favorable to candidates who reject one party. For both candidates, both lawyers must take a serious look at the candidate's situation. Both lawyers may ask questions about the candidates and judge whether or not to exercise their veto power based on what the candidates have answered. What kind of problem a lawyer designs is a highly technical one. But lawyers should not directly ask such questions as how candidates see the case. The judge should check the questions raised by the lawyer and reject it when the question is wrong. If the veto power is used, the jury does not meet the requirements of the jury - when the 12 jurors are numbered, they are determined by the judge. After the jury has been set up, several alternate jurors are needed to prevent the accident. A juror may be replaced by an alternate juror once the jury is unable to exercise the jury's discretion for illness or other reasons. The jury will wear a special jury badge. State jurors have different badges, mostly round, but with different colors, some states are yellow, and some states are red, white and two colors.Before a formal court session, the judge informs the jury in detail of the notes. Tell what can be done and what can not be done. For example: in the jury not to discuss the case with anyone (including other jurors), are not allowed to leave the court, without the consent of the use of telephone, other people and jurors illegal contact should promptly report the judge onthe case, can not read newspapers without approval. In general, jurors cannot talk to judges individually. If you want to talk to the judge, you must also have a lawyer from both parties present. The judge asked the jurors to pay attention to as many as dozens of items. Each juror, after reading these documents, signs his name to indicate that he has understood the notes. The jury has a coordinating and organizer, who can also be called the head of the jury". The head of a jury is elected by all jurors.In some major criminal and civil cases, the judge can isolate the jury from the outside world so as to avoid the jury from being disturbed by the outside world. The separation of juries is rare. The segregated jury usually lives in the designated hotel and has a guard. The jury can not leave the house without the permission of the judge. During the separation, jurors could not read newspapers or watch TV so as not to be influenced by the outside world. In the case of the famous Simpson case, the jury was isolated from the outside world. Foreign trial cases are generally consecutive trials, from the court until the ruling, except the statutory rest, shall not be interrupted.In a court session, the judge keeps issuing instructions to the jury. For example: what evidence pointed out that illegal evidence is not evidence, instructed the jury in fact can not be used if the evidence, the jury accepted the evidence, the jury verdict is invalid.In order for the jury to make a fair decision, any act of bribing jurors is illegal, and jurors must comply with the relevant lawsand regulations, and those who are severely punished will be subject to criminal sanctions.Court trials in the United States require cross examination, which means that judges and juries can not directly ask witnesses about the case and can only be questioned by lawyers from both parties. The lawyer's enquiry for one of his own witnesses is called the main inquiry, and the interrogation of the other party's witnesses is called counter questioning. The jury knows the facts of the case through questioning by both lawyers, and the judge controls the cross examination of both lawyers. When the judge and the lawyer discuss the procedural matters in the case, the jury can not participate because the jury can not decide the procedural matters.When both witnesses appear in court, the judge may ask the jury to discuss and decide on the case. The jury formed a verdict on the plaintiff's request and handed the jurors a vote. General civil and criminal cases require a vote of more than 9 votes. The murder is unanimous, unanimously agreed. When voting, 12 jurors are required to vote. Of course, in history there were 1 jurors absent, and 11 jurors were still valid. If a general case fails to establish the plaintiff's claim to more than 9 votes, the jury will need to reconsider it until a majority verdict is formed. How the jury finds the facts and how to form the verdict is absolutely confidential, even when the case is decided, the jury will reveal the case and will be punished by law.In the trial of civil compensation cases, the jury can only make a ruling within the amount requested by the plaintiff, and shallnot exceed the amount requested by the plaintiff. This is in the same spirit as the debate principle in the continental law system. Before the court session, the judge will notify the parties and both lawyers and the jury will announce the verdict at the next session. During the court session, the judge will ask the jury leader whether to form an opinion. In the event of a verdict, the head of the regiment will announce the award and the result of the voting. After the chief of the jury read out the verdict, the judge will also ask one of the jurors whether they agree or object. If a juror has objected at this time, and the opposition will exceed 4 votes, the award will be null and void, and the jury will reconsider.The jury system is an integral part of the American rule of law and the American litigation system, and reflects the characteristics of the American litigation system. The national participation of the jury system is the most attractive aspect of the American litigation system, which fully embodies the democratization of the rule of law in the United states. The existence of the jury system has become the basis and premise of other system with American characteristics, such as cross examination system, lawyer system, and even affected the American legal education system and method. The charm of the jury system toppled many continental law countries, and with the strong American culture, some continental law countries tried to transplant the introduction, but in the end they failed. In our country, there are a lot of people have the same jury system, for its splendor in the. But we should note that the jury system is a product of the special history of the United States, and has a special background of general social, cultural and legal culture, especially the jury system is a veryexpensive system. Countries like ours are hard to enjoy, and it takes a few days to select jurors. Under the unique background of legal consciousness, the will of the jury is the will of the people, that is, God, must not question the jury's impartiality in the fact finding, and the jury's decision is unquestionable. Based on our country's legal consciousness background, I am afraid it is very difficult for society to accept. In fact, different jurors will have different verdict because of the difference of knowledge background, life background, method of cognition and racial consciousness of jurors. The jury system embodies a kind of regular game. The question of the abolition of the jury system has always been an issue that the Americans have been talking about. We must not be for the jury system face appearance and eye. As the Americans say, the jury system is at least as good as its advantages. Although the new constitution provides for the implementation of the jury system in criminal proceedings and will be implemented within the Russian Federation in 2003, it has faced many problems in the trial. Moreover, the introduction of jury system in Russia also has its special political and historical background.As the court play is the color film "12 angry men" took place in a scene, the 1 angry men questioned the psychological changes observed then 11 members of the jury, which is "respect for life, reflect on the bias, the justice of responsibility", "12 angry men" good and great in my opinion is reflected in the pursuit of humanitarian universal values,。

高级英语(第三版)第一册第四课 The Trail That Rocked the World

2) To acquaint students with the Monkey Trail event
3) To help students to appreciate the writer’s style and abundant use of figure of sperms
boss of the company. The post office is close at hand.
on (one's) hands // upon (one's) hands: In one's possession, often as an imposed responsibility or burden: 由某人负责 e.g. Now they have the grandchildren on their hands. Sorry, I cannot help you at the moment. I have several cases on hand myself.
silver-tongued: (lit.) able to give fine persuading speeches, eloquent, idiom: be born with a silver spoon in one’s mouth
nominee: a person who has been named officially for election to a position, office, honor, etc.
sweltering: very hot, causing unpleasantness to swelter: be very uncomfortable because the weather is extremely hot. e.g. Fred sweltered at night in the stuffy, crowded dormitory.

法律英语基础句子：Jury 陪审团

美联英语提供：法律英语基础句子：Jury 陪审团小编给你一个美联英语官方试听课申请链接：/?tid=16-73374-0Jury 陪审团1.Every defendant charged with a felony has a right to be charged by the Grand Jury.重罪被告都有权由大陪审团审理。

2.He chose to stand trial by jury.他选择了陪审团审判。

3.The accused made his election for jury trial.被告选择了由陪审团参加的审判。

4.The judge directed the jury to acquit all the defendants.法官指示陪审团裁定所有被告无罪。

5.The jury brought in a verdict of not guilty.陪审团作出了无罪裁定。

6.The jury found him guilty and did not recommend mercy.陪审团裁定他有罪，且未提出宽大处理。

7.The jury has to decide whom to believe among a mass of conflicting evidence. 在一大堆相互抵触的证据中，陪审团必须决定相信哪一方。

8.The jury reached a unanimous verdict of not guilty.陪审团一致裁定无罪。

9.The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the judge will pass sentence next week. 陪审团裁定有罪，法官将于下周判刑。

10.The jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision.陪审团未能达成意见一致的裁决。

Jury trial

JURY TRIAL IN UNITED STATES
In the Unite来自 States, every person accused of a crime punishable by incarceration(监禁） for more than six months has a constitutional right to a trial by jury.

VOTE
In the vote ,all those 12 jurors are demanded to vote. In ordinary civil case（民事案件） or criminal cases ,there must be more than 9 voted agreed ruling. If less than 9 votes ,that requires the jury reconsidered ,until form a majority verdicts opinion. When it comes to murder ,must be pass unanimously.

Thank you!
THE KIND OF JURY SYSTEMY
The
grand jury petit jury
The
THE GRAND JURY

The United States is virtually the only common law jurisdiction in the world that continues to use the grand jury to screen criminal indictments.

In 1352, Edward III forbidden the grand jury taking part in trial and required to another jury—the petit jury. Therefore, there were two juries in the Britain. In the middle of 19th century, the jury system gradually have been abolished, and procurator system taken place of jury system.

高级英语(第三版)第一册第四课 The Trail That Rocked the World

Paras 29-44: the climax and verdict of the trial
2) To acquaint students with the Monkey Trail event
3) To help students to appreciate the writer’s style and abundant use of figure of speech.
Certain legal terms
Pp(3-9) Flashback
Para 1
• A buzz ran through the crowd as I took my place in the packed court on that sweltering July day in 1925. The counsel for my defence was the famous criminal lawyer Clarence Darrow. Leading counsel for the prosecution was William Jennings Bryan, the silver-tongued orator, three times Democratic nominee for President of the United States, and leader of the fundamental movement that had brought about the trial.
•
buzz: a noise of a low hum, low confused whisper/ a long continuous sound e.g. Mosquitoes buzzed around me all night. A buzz of excitement filled the courtroom as the defendant was led in.

monkey trial的介绍

monkey trial的介绍Monkey Trial是指1925年在美国田纳西州举行的一场著名的进化论官司。

这场官司的全名是田纳西州课堂进化论案（The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes），被广为称为Monkey Trial，意为“猴子官司”。

这场官司的起因是1925年田纳西州通过了一项法律，禁止在公立学校中教授达尔文的进化论理论。

然而，当时的美国正处于进化论与宗教信仰相冲突的时期，许多教育界和科学界人士对这项法律表示了强烈的反对。

为了测试这项法律的合宪性，一位名叫约翰·斯科普斯（John Scopes）的高中生物教师故意在课堂上教授了进化论。

他很快就被田纳西州当局逮捕并起诉，成为了这场历史性官司的被告。

这场官司吸引了全美国的关注，各大媒体纷纷报道，并吸引了一些著名人物参与其中。

斯科普斯的辩护律师是一位名叫克拉伦斯·达罗（Clarence Darrow）的著名律师，他是一位进化论的支持者。

而起诉斯科普斯的检察官则是一位名叫威廉·詹宁斯·布莱恩特（William Jennings Bryan）的前总统候选人，他是一位坚定的基督教创造论拥护者。

整个官司过程充满了激烈的辩论和冲突。

达罗在辩护中试图证明田纳西州的进化论禁令违宪，并主张科学和宗教可以和谐共存。

而布莱恩特则试图通过宗教观点来辩驳进化论，并维护田纳西州的法律。

经过长达两周的庭审，法庭最终判定斯科普斯有罪，并处以100美元的罚款。

尽管如此，这场官司对美国社会产生了深远的影响。

它引发了对宗教和科学关系的讨论，也为进化论的合法性奠定了基础。

Monkey Trial不仅在当时引起了轰动，对于今天的我们来说，也有着重要的意义。

它提醒我们要保护科学的自由和中立性，同时也要尊重不同的宗教信仰。

它也教会了我们，尽管科学和宗教有时会发生冲突，但我们可以通过对话和辩论来解决分歧，而不是诉诸法律和官司。

Jury-System-of-the-United-States

第8页，共11页。
Some famous cases
Simpson killed his wife case 辛普森杀妻案
Karen Silkwood nuclear electrical power plant case
丝伍德核电厂案
第9页，共11页。
Some famous movies
Runaway Jury 失控陪审团
Jury Duty 乌龙陪审团
第10页，共11页。
Thank you.
•
By Jack Sarah
第11页，共11页。
第3页，共11页。
The origins of America jury
The tradition of trial by jury in this country is older than the Republic
itself, having arisen from traditions that were rooted in English life by the thirteenth century. How did the jury come about? For what purposes was it designed, and what ends did it end up serving?
第6页，共11页。
The Compare of Basic Value of Jury System between China and American
第7页，共11页。
At the same time of supporting our participating interrogation system, author suggests we should choice jurors from wider crowd at random; the proportion of juror can be low in collegiate bench, but proportion of juror in collegiate bench should be higher; we should change the present way of arbitrating through simple majority, introduce unanimous arbitrate system in important case to ensure freedom of minority; with the considering of the existence of death penalty, the death penalty case should first of all arbitrate by unanimous arbitrate by collegiate bench only consisted of juror, collegiate bench checking death penalty should participate by juror to ensure fair and humanism. Just like continent country law system, our country isn't provided with qualifications of practicing jury system, and can only carry out participating interrogation system. But the system is temporary, we should create condition and put jury system into practice in the end.