沙丽金版法律英语71页PPT
1b-case law沙丽金版法律英语
Although the Supreme Court has
changed the law and overruled the decision reached in Case 1, Plaintiff A still cannot bring his suit again and prevail in his claim:
The Common Law Doctrine of Precedent
The Doctrine of Precedent
Also the Principle of Stare Decisis:
Past judicial decisions are formally and generally binding for the disposition of factually similar present controversies.
The Weight or Influence of a Precedent
It is greatly affected by whether it was a
„higher court‟ decision or a „lower court‟ decision:
A „higher court‟ decision will have greater weight as precedent than a „lower court‟ decision. The decisions of a trial court are not likely to have much force as precedent except in future cases in the same trial court.
沙丽金版法律英语ppt课件
3
Intentional Torts
4
General
Definition
any intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to an individual, and that do so
Tort Law
1
General
Definition
Tort law is the body of law that deals with civil wrongs, except those that arise from contract problems.
Purpose
to compensate an injured party through the award of damages for the injuries incurred during a tortious act
9
Assault
With the tort of assault, a perceived threat by the victim is paramount.
＊A defendant throws a rock at a sleeping victim.
He can only be guilty of the attempted battery assault, since the victim would not be aware of the possible harm.
Torts against the person
assault battery false imprisonment intentional infliction of emotional distress
法律英语ppt
法律英语pptLegal English in PracticeIntroduction:Legal English is a specialized form of language used in the legal profession. It includes specific terminology, expressions, and grammar structures that are unique to the field of law. This presentation will delve into the importance of legal English, its characteristics, and how it is applied in practice.Importance of Legal English:1. Clarity and precision: Legal documents and contracts must be written with utmost clarity and precision to avoid misinterpretation or ambiguity. Legal English ensures that each word and comma carries precise meaning.2. International scope: Legal English serves as a common language for legal professionals worldwide. It enables effective communication between lawyers and clients from different countries and legal systems.3. Understanding legal concepts: Legal English is vital for comprehending complex legal concepts and principles. Whetherit's studying case law or reading statutes, a strong grasp of legal English is essential for legal research and analysis. Characteristics of Legal English:1. Formality: Legal English is known for its formality, with an emphasis on objective and neutral language. It avoids personal opinions or emotions and presents information in an authoritativemanner.2. Technical language: Legal English incorporates specialized terminology and jargon specific to the legal profession. This language ensures precision and avoids ambiguity in legal discourse.3. Structure and style: Legal English uses specific structures and formats for legal documents, such as contracts, pleadings, and legal opinions. These formats have specific headings, subheadings, and numbering to ensure clarity and organization.Application of Legal English:1. Drafting legal documents: Legal English is used extensively in drafting contracts, agreements, and legal correspondence. It is crucial to use precise language and pay attention to detail to ensure legal documents are valid and enforceable.2. Courtroom proceedings: Legal English is spoken and written in courtrooms during trials, hearings, and legal arguments. Lawyers must effectively communicate their arguments, cross-examination, and present evidence to the judge and jury using legal English.3. International relations: Legal English facilitates legal negotiations and interactions between countries and international organizations. It is used in treaties, international agreements, and diplomatic communications.Conclusion:Legal English is a necessary skill for legal professionals as it enables effective communication, precision, and clarity in the fieldof law. Understanding the importance, characteristics, and applications of legal English is crucial for success in the legal profession.。
沙丽金版法律英语复习.ppt
精选文档
10
Battery
Definition
(at common law) an intentional act causing an unconsented harmful or offensive contact with a person
Criminal battery and tortious battery
Intent
Intent is most often proved through circumstantial evidence—the defendant’s conduct, in the context of his or her surroundings and what he or she presumably knew and perceived.
Tort Law
精选文档
General
Definition
Tort law is the body of law that deals with civil wrongs, except those that arise from contract problems.
Purpose
to compensate an injured party through the award of damages for the injuries incurred during a tortious act
精选文档
9
Assault
With the tort of assault, a perceived threat by the victim is paramount.
＊A defendant throws a rock at a sleeping victim.
沙丽金版法律英语 PPT
There is but a single tort of battery.
Battery
“Harmful" contact
contact that objectively intends to injure, disfigure, impair, or cause pain
Under the law, the individual causing the harm will be seen as having "intended" the act by means of the "transferred intent" doctrine.
General
Subcategories
General
Transferred intent
Transferred intent is a doctrine used in both criminal law and tort law when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead.
Battery
Definition
(at common law) an intentional act causing an unconsented harmful or offensive contact with a person
Criminal battery and tortiouseral
沙丽金版法律英语
IIED
Definition
★short for intentional infliction of emotional distress
★referred to as the tort of outrage in some jurisdictions
yelling the word snake to a person whom you know is in fear of snakes
Criminal assault and tortious assault
In criminal law, an assault can result from an attempted battery. Since some attempted batteries might theoretically occur when the victim is sleeping, unconscious, or unaware of the threat, criminal assault can occur even when no threat is perceived by the victim.
against societal benefits
Intentional Torts
General
Definition
any intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to an individual, and that do so
Criminal law recognizes degrees of crimes involving physical contact.
沙丽金版法律英语
.
3
Intentional Torts
.
4
General
Definition
any intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to an individual, and that do so
Intent
Intent is most often proved through circumstantial evidence—the defendant’s conduct, in the context of his or her surroundings and what he or she presumably knew and perceived.
Criminal law recognizes degrees of crimes involving physical contact.
There is but a single tort of battery.
.
11
Battery
.
7
Assault
Definition
(in common law) an intentional act that creates an apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact
Assault and battery
As distinguished from battery, assault need not involve actual contact—it only needs intent and the resulting apprehension.
沙丽金版法律英语
Intentional Torts
General
• Definition
– any intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to an individual, and that do so
– As distinguished from battery, assault need not involve actual contact—it only needs intent and the resulting apprehension.
• wielding a t
– Intent is most often proved through circumstantial evidence—the defendant’s conduct, in the context of his or her surroundings and what he or she presumably knew and perceived.
• yelling the word snake to a person whom you know is in fear of snakes
• Criminal assault and tortious assault
– In criminal law, an assault can result from an attempted battery. Since some attempted batteries might theoretically occur when the victim is sleeping, unconscious, or unaware of the threat, criminal assault can occur even when no threat is perceived by the victim.
沙丽金版法律英语详解
Intentional Torts
General
Definition
any intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to an individual, and that do so
Intent
Intent is most often proved through circumstantial evidence—the defendant’s conduct, in the context of his or her surroundings and what he or she presumably knew and perceived.
General
Transferred intent
Transferred intent is a doctrine used in both criminal law and tort law when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead.
wielding a knife
Assault
yelling the word snake to a person whom you know is in fear of snakes
CrimiLeabharlann al assault and tortious assault
In criminal law, an assault can result from an attempted battery. Since some attempted batteries might theoretically occur when the victim is sleeping, unconscious, or unaware of the threat, criminal assault can occur even when no threat is perceived by the victim.
沙丽金老师讲义
简介沙丽金博士, 中国政法大学教授，在中国政法大学开设法律英语课和翻译课。
2001年至2007年为美国杜肯大学和加拿大蒙特利尔大学中国法律暑期班讲授中国法律课。
2005年至2009年在清华大学与美国天普大学合作的LLM项目任法律英语兼职教授。
2008年赴冰岛讲学，讲授中国法律课。
曾于1997年主编《法律英语教程》，由中国政法大学出版社出版，又于2007年和2008年分别由中国政法大学出版社和中国民主法制出版社出版了供本科生和研究生使用的《法律英语》教材。
在教学之余，长期从事法律翻译工作，出版的译著有《刑法的分配原则》、《美国刑事诉讼法》等。
沙丽金教授现任中国法律语言研究会副会长、北京市应用法学研究中心研究员。
American Legal System沙丽金中国政法大学外国语学院Legal systems of the world⏹Civil law system⏹Common law system…Hierarchy of laws in the U.S.Constitutional History & Governmental Structure⏹Declaration of Independence⏹Articles of confederation⏹Constitutional convention⏹Bill of rightsBasic Principles of the U.S. Constitution⏹Federalism⏹Separation of powers⏹Checks and balancesGovernmental structure under the U.S. Constitution⏹Legislative power⏹Executive power⏹Judicial powerJudicial System⏹Trial courts and appellate courts⏹States and federal courtsTypes of Judicial OpinionsStructure of Judicial OpinionLegal Reasoning Process⏹Deductive reasoning process⏹Analogical reasoning processCriminal Procedure2011 LEC Training CoursePart I. Incorporation of Bill of Rights into Due ProcessA constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE of the Fourteenth Amendment.The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to the Constitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governments largely are held to the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the First Amendment freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, and the separation of church and state; the Fourth Amendment freedoms from unwarranted arrest and unreasonable SEARCHES AND SEIZURES; the FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION; and the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy, fair, and public trial. Some provisions of the Bill of Rights—including the requirement of indictment by a Grand Jury (Sixth Amendment) and the right to a jury trial in civil cases (Seventh Amendment)—have not been applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine.Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the federal government. In the 1833 case Barron ex rel. Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Supreme Court expressly limited application of the Bill of Rights to the federal government. By the mid-nineteenth century, this view was being challenged. For example, Republicans who were opposed to southern state laws that made it a crime to speak and publish against Slavery alleged that such laws violated First Amendment rights regarding Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.For a brief time following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, it appeared that the Supreme Court might use the PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873), the first significant Supreme Court ruling on the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court handed down an extremely limiting interpretation of that clause. The Court held that the clause created a distinction between rights associated with state citizenship and rights associated with U.S., or federal, citizenship. It concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from passing laws abridging the rights of U.S.citizen-ship (which, it implied, were few in number) but had no authority over laws abridging the rights of state citizenship. The effect of this ruling was to put much state legislation beyond the review of the Supreme Court.Instead of applying the Bill of Rights as a whole to the states, as it might have done through the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Supreme Court has gradually applied selected elements of the first ten amendments to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This process, known as selective incorporation, began in earnest in the 1920s. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925), one of the earliest examples of the use of the incorporation doctrine, the Court held that the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech applied to the states through the Due Process Clause. By the late 1940s, many civil freedoms, including freedom of the press (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 [1931]), had been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, as had many of the rights that applied to defendants in criminal cases, including the right to representation by counsel in capital cases (Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 [1931]). In 1937, the Court decided that some of the privileges and immunities of the Bill of Rights were so fundamental that states were required to abide by them through the Due Process Clause (Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288).In 1947, the Court rejected an argument that the Fifth Amendment's right againstSelf-Incrimination applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (Adamson v. People of the State of California, 332 U.S. 46, 67 S. Ct. 1672, 91 L. Ed. 2d 1903 [1947]). However, in one of the most famous dissents in history, Justice HUGO L. BLACK argued that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated all aspects of the Bill of Rights and applied them to the states. Justice Felix Frankfurter, who wrote a concurrence in Adamson, disagreed forcefully with Black, arguing that some rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment may overlap with the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, but are not based directly upon such rights. The Court was hesitant to apply the incorporation doctrine until 1962, when Frankfurter retired from the Court. Following his retirement, most provisions of the Bill of Rights were eventually incorporated to apply to the states.The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, in 1833 the Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state, government. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1890s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate"most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.HistoryThe genesis of incorporation has been traced back to either Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago (1897) in which the Supreme Court appeared to require some form of just compensation for property appropriated by state or local authorities (although there was a state statute on the books that provided the same guarantee) or, more commonly, to Gitlow v. New York (1925), in which the Court expressly held that States were bound to protect freedom of speech. Since that time, the Court has steadily incorporated most of the significant provisions of the Bill of Rights.[1]Provisions that the Supreme Court either has refused to incorporate, or whose possible incorporation has not yet been addressed include the Fifth Amendment right to an indictment by a grand jury, and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits.Incorporation applies both procedurally and substantively to the guarantees of the states. Thus, procedurally, only a jury can convict a defendant of a serious crime, since the Sixth Amendment jury-trial right has been incorporated against the states; substantively, for example, states must recognize the First Amendment prohibition against a state-established religion, regardless of whether state laws and constitutions offer such a prohibition. The Supreme Court has declined, however, to apply new procedural constitutional rights retroactively against the states in criminal cases (Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S.288 (1989)) with limited exceptions, and it has waived constitutional requirements if the states can prove that a constitutional violation was "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."There are, however, some substantive guarantees whose incorporation the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on—for example, the Third Amendment right against quartering soldiers in private homes except in wartime as provided by law.Part II. Exclutionary RuleThe exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. However, in some circumstances at least, the exclusionary rule may also be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.""The exclusionary rule is grounded in the Fourth Amendment and it is intended to protect citizens from illegal searches and seizures." [1] The exclusionary rule is also designed to provide a remedy and disincentive, which is short of criminal prosecution in response to prosecutors and police who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights compelled to self-incrimination. The exclusionary rule also applies to violations of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel.This rule is occasionally referred to as a legal technicality because it allows defendants a defense that does not address whether the crime was actually committed. In this respect, it is similar to the explicit rule in the Fifth Amendment protecting people from double jeopardy.The exclusionary rule judges the admissibility of evidence based on deontological ethics; that is, it is concerned with how evidence is acquired, rather than what the evidence proves. For this reason, in strict cases, when an illegal action is used by police/prosecution to gain any incriminating result, all evidence whose recovery stemmed from the illegal action—this evidence is known as "fruit of the poisonous tree"—can be thrown out from a jury (or be grounds for a mistrial if too much information has been irrevocably revealed).The exclusionary rule applies to all persons within the United States regardless of whether they are citizens, immigrants (legal or illegal), or visitors.History of the ruleUp until the independence of the United States, the courts of England excludedself-incriminating evidence that was provided as a result of official compulsion, regardless of its reliability.[2] In 1769, Lord Chief Justice Mansfield explained as follows:―[I]n civil causes, the court will force parties to produce evidence which may prove against themselves; or leave the refusal to do it (after proper notice) asa strong presumption, to the jury....But in a criminal or penal cause, thedefendant is never forced to produce any evidence; though he should hold itin his hands in court.[3]‖Chief Justice Mansfield also explained that "If any evidence or confession has been extorted from her, it will be of no prejudice to her on the trial."[4] Additionally, a defendant could sue to suppress and regain possession of at least some types of illegally-seized evidence, in a common law action for replevin.[5]However, in the 1783 case of Ceglinski v. Orr, the English courts declined to suppress evidence obtained by illegal coercion. In the Warickshall case, evidence was gathered as a result of an involuntary confession, and the court held that the evidence (but notthe confession itself) could be admitted.[6] It is questionable whether the Warickshall rule became known in the United States before 1789 (when the U.S. Bill of Rights was written), and whether it applied to confessions obtained by both governmental and private parties.[2] In any event, no decision by the Supreme Court of the United States has ever endorsed the Warickshall rule as a constitutional matter.[2]Generally speaking, English law before 1789 did not provide as strong an exclusionary rule as the one that later developed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, regarding unlawful searches and seizures.[5] The Fourth Amendment, after all, was partly a reaction against English law including the general warrant and the writs of assistance.[5]In the 1886 case of Boyd v. United States,[7] the U.S. Supreme Court addressed compulsory production of business papers, and the Court excluded those papers based on a combination of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Boyd was closely limited to its facts, and several years later the Court stated that the Fourth Amendment does not extend to "excluding testimony" about wrongful searches and seizures.[8]In 1897, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Bram v. United States,[9] that involuntary confessions are inadmissible as evidence. The Court in Bram did not announce a strong version of the exclusionary rule that would apply uniformly to exclude all evidence gathered in violation of the Bill of Rights, but instead announced a weak version that excluded only self-incriminating testimony that was compelled in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The distinction between testimonial versus other self-incriminating evidence is a matter of continuing debate.[10]Before a strong version of the exclusionary rule was addressed and adopted by the federal courts, it had already been adopted by at least one state court, namely the Iowa Supreme Court, as that court would later describe:―The genesis of Iowa‘s exclusionary rule was a civil case, Reifsnyder v. Lee,44 Iowa 101 (1876).... The first application of the exclusionary rule in acriminal context occurred in the Height case, decided in 1902. Heightinvolved a physical exam of the defendant against his will. 117 Iowa at 652,91 N.W. at 935. This court held that the examination of the defendantviolated the due process clause of the Iowa Constitution, as well as article 1,section 8‘s prohibition of unreasonable searches.[11]‖In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a strong version of the exclusionary rule, in the case of Weeks v. United States, under the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.[12] This decision, however, created the rule only on the federal level. The "Weeks Rule", which made an exception for cases at the state level, was adopted by numerous states at a time during prohibition. In adopting the rule, actions by states often reflected attitudes towards prohibition, which was enacted by adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment and was enforced through theVolstead Act. Concerns about privacy violations also extended to other instances where criminal sanctions were permitted for "victimless" crime, such as illegal gambling or narcotics violations.[13]In 1920, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine in the case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States.[14] The Court stated that allowing evidence gathered as an indirect result of an unconstitutional search and seizure "reduces the Fourth Amendment to a form of words."Wolf v. Colorado (1949) ruled that states were not required to adopt the exclusionary rule. Despite the ruling, some states adopted the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court of California ruled in People v. Cahan (1955) that the exclusionary rule applied for cases in the state of California. By 1960, 22 states had adopted the rule without substantial qualifications: California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Michigan also had an exclusionary rule, but with limitations for some narcotics and firearms evidence. In Alabama, Maryland, and South Dakota, the exclusionary rule applied in some situations.[13]It was not until Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S.643 (1961) that the exclusionary rule was also held to be binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process. Up until Mapp, the exclusionary rule had been rejected by most states.[15]Applications of the exclusionary ruleThe exclusionary rule originally often applies to evidence obtained through unauthorized search and seizure. Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant, which required probable cause, should be obtained in order to conduct a search. A number of exceptions to the warrant requirement have developed, based on other interpretations of what "reasonableness" entails. A strict interpretation of the Fourth Amendment says that a search without a warrant is unreasonable. This interpretation is favored by civil liberties advocates.[16]The rule was expanded in the 1960s to cover other aspects of law enforcement procedure, including "involuntary" confessions,[17] suspect identification obtained in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments,[18] wiretapping evidence in violation of federal law,[19] and other evidence obtained through very unreasonable or "shocking" means in violation of Constitutional rights.[20][21] In Illinois, People v. Albea (1954) ruled that testimony from witnesses found in course of an unlawful search cannot be admitted into court.Limitations of the ruleThe exclusionary rule does not apply in a civil case, in a grand jury proceeding, or in a parole revocation hearing.Even in a criminal case, the exclusionary rule does not simply bar the introduction of all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment. In Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S.Ct. 2159 (June 15, 2006), Justice Scalia wrote for the U.S. Supreme Court:―Suppression of evidence, however, has always been our last resort, not our first impulse. The exclusionary rule generates "substantial social costs,"United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 907 (1984), which sometimes includesetting the guilty free and the dangerous at large. We have therefore been"cautious against expanding" it, Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 166(1986), and "have repeatedly emphasized that the rule's 'costly toll' upontruth-seeking and law enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle forthose urging [its] application," Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v.Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 364-365 (1998) (citation omitted). We have rejected"indiscriminate application" of the rule, Leon, supra, at 908, and have held itto be applicable only "where its remedial objectives are thought mostefficaciously served," United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 (1974) –that is, "where its deterrence benefits outweigh its 'substantial social costs,'"Scott, supra, at 363, (quoting Leon, supra, at 907). Whether the exclusionarysanction is appropriately imposed in a particular case is an issue separatefrom the question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seekingto invoke the rule were violated by police conduct. ‖Limitations on the exclusionary rule have included the following:∙Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, withthe Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials.[22]∙Evidence can only be suppressed if the illegal search violated the person's own (the person making the court motion) constitutional rights. The exclusionaryrule does not apply to privacy rights of a third party.[23] However, there is anarrow exception to this standing requirement, the jus tertii standing exception.See, e.g., Singleton v. Wulff Et Al., 96 S. Ct. 2868, 428 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1976);The Assertion of Constitutional Jus Tertii: A Substantive Approach, RobertAllen Sedler, California Law Review, Vol. 70, No. 6 (Dec., 1982), pp.1308-1344; Standing to Assert Constitutional Jus Tertii, 88 Harv.L.Rev. 423,(1974).∙The defendant cannot take advantage of the situation (police breaching rules) to turn the case to their advantage, in face of other evidence against them.[24]∙The Silver Platter doctrine applied before the Elkins v. United States ruling in 1960. State officials that obtained evidence illegally were allowed to turn over evidence to federal officials, and have that evidence be admitted into trial.[25]Nix v. Williams held that if the evidence obtained in the unlawful search would almost definitely have been found eventually even without said search(inevitable discovery), the evidence may be brought forth in court.The exclusionary rule is not applicable to aliens residing outside of U.S. borders. In United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that property owned by aliens in a foreign country is admissible in court. Certain persons in the U.S. receive limited protections, such as prisoners, probationers, parolees, and persons crossing U.S. borders. Corporations, by virtue of being, also have limited rights under the Fourth Amendment (see corporate personhood).Part III. The Fourth AmendmentThe Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S.643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also ruled that certain searches and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly granted.Text―The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, andno Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath oraffirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and thepersons or things to be seized. ‖The Fourth Amendment specifies that any warrant must be judicially sanctioned for a search or an arrest, in order for such a warrant to be considered reasonable. Warrants must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a law enforcement officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court.The Fourth Amendment applies to governmental searches and seizures, but not those done by private citizens or organizations who are not acting on behalf of a government.[14] The Bill of Rights originally only restricted the power of the federal government. However, in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S.643 (1961), the Supreme Courtruled that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to state governments by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, all state constitutions contain an analogous provision.[15]The Fourth Amendment applies to criminal law, but not civil law, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Murray v. Hoboken Land (1855).[16] The jurisdiction of the federal government in the realm of criminal law was narrow, until the late 19th century when the Interstate Commerce Act and Sherman Antitrust Act were passed. As criminal jurisdiction of the federal government expanded to include other areas such as narcotics, more questions about the Fourth Amendment came to the Supreme Court.[17]The Supreme Court ruled that some searches and seizures may violate the reasonableness requirement under the Fourth Amendment, even if a warrant is supported by probable cause and is limited in scope.[18] Conversely, the Court has approved routine warrantless seizures, for example "where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed."[19] Thus, the reasonableness requirement and the warrant requirement are somewhat different.The reasonableness requirement applies not just to a search in combination with a seizure, but also to a search without a seizure, as well as to a seizure without a search.[20] Hence, the amendment is not limited to protecting elements of privacy or personal autonomy, but rather applies pervasively to virtually all aspects of criminal law. Nevertheless, the amendment does not replace other constitutional provisions, such as replacing the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment with a more sweeping ban on "unreasonable" punishment.Stop and FriskUnder Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S.1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", that the suspicious person has a weapon and that the person is presently dangerous to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk") to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon. To conduct a frisk, officers must be able to point to specific and articulatory facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant their actions. A vague hunch will not do. Such a search must be temporary and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (i.e., officers who stop a person because they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was driving a stolen car, cannot, after confirming that it is not stolen, compel the person to answer questions about anything else, such as the possession of contraband).SeizureThe Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, person's home (including its curtilage) or personal property without a warrant. A seizure of property occurs when there is meaningful interference by the government with an individual's possessory interests,[23] such as when police officers take personal property away from an owner to use as evidence. The Amendment also protects against unreasonable seizure of their persons, including a brief detention.[24]A seizure does not occur just because the government questions an individual in a public place. The exclusionary rule would not bar voluntary answers to such questions from being offered into evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution. The person is not being seized if his freedom of movement is not restrained.[25][26] The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds, with few exceptions. His refusal to listen or answer does not by itself furnish such grounds.[27]A person is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only when by means of physical force or show of authority his freedom of movement is restrained, and in the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would believe that he was not free to leave.[27] As long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required, the courts will usually consider the police contact to be a "citizen encounter" which falls outside the protections of the Fourth Amendment.[28] If a person remains free to disregard questioning by the government, there has been no intrusion upon the person's liberty or privacy under the Fourth Amendment — there has been no seizure.[27]ExceptionsThe government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable and articulable suspicion, with a few exceptions.Where society's need is great and no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, checkpoints toward that end may briefly detain motorists. In Michigan v. Sitz 496 U.S.444 (1990), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless sobriety checkpoints. In United States v.Martinez-Fuerte 428 U.S.543 (1976), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless immigration checkpoints. In Delaware v. Prouse 440 U.S.648 (1979), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless checkpoints for driver's licenses and registration. In Illinois v. Lidster 540 U.S.419 (2004), the Supreme Court allowed focused informational checkpoints. However, discretionary checkpoints or generalcrime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed.[29]Another exception is at borders and ports of entry.Arrest。
法律英语(沙丽金第二版)参考译文完整版Lesso
《法律英语》（沙丽金版）2011年第二版课文参考译文翻译整理人：新浪微博@我是空白白《法律英语》（沙丽金版）2011年第二版参考译文目录前言（必看） (2)Lesson 1 law（法律） (3)Lesson 2 Legal System（法律体系） (4)Lesson 3 Legal Education（法律教育） (6)Lesson 4 Court System（法院体系） (7)Lesson 5 Construction（宪法） (9)Lesson 6 Administrative Law（行政法） (10)Lesson 7 Criminal Law（刑法） (12)Lesson 8 Criminal Procedure（刑事诉讼程序） (13)Lesson 9 Civil Procedure（民事诉讼程序） (15)Lesson 10 Torts（侵权行为） (16)Lesson 11 Contract（合同） (18)Lesson 12 Property Law（物权法） (19)Lesson 13 Law of Corporation（公司法） (20)Lesson 14 Intellectual Property（知识产权） (22)Lesson 15 International Law（国际法） (23)Lesson 16 Evidence（证据） (24)后记 (26)前言（必看）1、此翻译并非权威翻译，而是技术含量不高的译文。
其中肯定有很多不恰当甚至错误的地方，所以仅供参考，欢迎各位同学指正。
（新浪微博@我是空白白）2、制作本译文动力源于兴趣，目的在于互相交流学习。
3、如果你只是想以此译文来应付老师上课的抽问，那么你大可不必下载或复制此文档，因为这样你对不起你自己。
4、本译文=老师的长难句注解（即划线部分。
我无意间在网上找到了部分老师传到网上的注解文档。
O(∩_∩)O ）+1位往届同学的翻译+1位同届同学的翻译+课堂笔记+本人拙译（虽然本人英语不怎么好，但我会尽最大努力与大家分享所学到的知识）。
沙丽金版法律英语.ppt
General
Underlying policy considerations
maintenance of a peaceful society deterrence social responsibility the balancing of economic interests
against societal benefits
General
Transferred intent
Transferred intent is a doctrine used in both criminal law and tort law when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead.
Torts against the person
assault battery false imprisonment intentional infliction of emotional distress
Property torts
trespass to land trespass to chattels (personal property) conversion
Assault
With the tort of assault, a perceived threat by the victim is paramount.
＊A defendant throws a rock at a sleeping victim.
He can only be guilty of the attempted battery assault, since the victim would not be aware of the possible harm.
沙丽金版法律英语
Assault
Assault
yelling the word snake to a person whom you know is in fear of snakes
Criminal assault and tortious assault
In criminal law, an assault can result from an attempted battery. Since some attempted batteries might theoretically occur when the victim is sleeping, unconscious, or unaware of the threat, criminal assault can occur even when no threat is perceived by the victim.
Assault
With the tort of assault, a perceived threat by the victim is paramount. ＊A defendant throws a rock at a sleeping victim.
He can only be guilty of the attempted battery assault, since the victim would not be aware of the possible harm.
Intent
General
Transferred intent
Transferred intent is a doctrine used in both criminal law and tort law when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead. Under the law, the individual causing the harm will be seen as having "intended" the act by means of the "transferred intent" doctrine.
沙丽金版法律英语
General
Definition
Tort law is the body of law that deals with civil wrongs, except those that arise from contract problems.
Purpose
to compensate an injured party through the award of damages for the injuries incurred during a tortious act
Assault
Definition
(in common law) an intentional act that creates an apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact
AssaultБайду номын сангаасand battery
As distinguished from battery, assault need not involve actual contact—it only needs intent and the resulting apprehension.
General
Underlying policy considerations
maintenance of a peaceful society deterrence social responsibility the balancing of economic interests
against societal benefits
Criminal law recognizes degrees of crimes involving physical contact.
1a-legal families沙丽金版法律英语
Rather than legislate to amend the law, the King created the court of Chancery, which could grant a discretionary relief in equity to correct the common law.
The establishment of some royal courts at Westminster The expansion of their jurisdiction The disuse of the local courts The appearance of the common law
The Common Law in the US
Evolution
‘Legal Separation’
Because
of the early independence of the US, the common law here has evolved separately from that of England and of other Commonwealth countries, who became independent only fairly recently.
Байду номын сангаас
A Brief History of Ancient Rome
The Western Roman Empire The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium)
Invasions of the ‘barbarians’
The Huns The Germanic peoples