make for
have an objection to smth., doing smth.
summon - , ( )
be qualified to give evidence -
accomplice to smth. -
hold out little hope -
reopen the case -
recall a witness -
identify
perjury - ,
commit perjury - ,
verdict - ( )
bring in a verdict of guilty (not guilty) - ()
release - (- )
What are you driving at? - ?
run the risk of -
plead with smb. - -.
reluctant - , ( -.)
We are even. - .
Pull yourself together. - () .
execute -
Exercises
1. Study the text carefully and answer these questions.
1. Who was the surprise witness for the Prosecution?
2. Why did Sir Wilfred object to Christine testifying against her husband?
3. What made Sir Wilfred give in?
4. What was the evidence given by Christine?
5. Was the evidence given by Christine fatal for Leonard Vole? Why?
6. The new statement ran counter to what Christine had testified in the police station, didn't it? What made Christine tell the truth?
7. What was the effect of Christine's testimony on the jury?
8. Why did Christine not tell Leonard Vole she was married when the latter proposed to her?
9. What was the effect of Christine's testimony on the jury and the public?
10. What kind of evidence came into Sir Wilfred's possession?
11. In what way did Sir Wilfred trap Christine? Did she fall for the trap?
What facts did the letter reveal?
12. Did Christine confess she had written the letters or did she go on denying it?
13. What was the verdict?
14. Why did Sir Wilfred feel dissatisfied with the case? What was wrong about it?
15. How did the British impress Christine?
16. Why did Christine have the right to say that both of them, Sir Wilfred and she, had saved Vole?
17. Why couldn't Christine run the risk of trusting Sir Wilfred?
18. Why did Christine sacrifice herself for Vole's sake?
19. Was Leonard Vole happy to see his wife?
20. Who was the girl that rushed into the room?
21. Why did Christine kill Vole?
22. What did Sir Wilfred mean by saying "She's executed him"?
23. What made Sir Wilfred change his plans and put off his trip?
2. Agree or disagree:
a) Christine Vole was a surprise witness for the Prosecution.
b) Christines evidence was fatal for Leonard Vole.
c) Christine told Leonard Vole she was married when the latter proposed her.
d) Unfortunately no more evidence to reopen the case came into Sir Wilfreds possession.
e) Christine fell for the trap made by Sir Wilfred.
|
|
|
f) The jury found Leonard Vole guilty.
g) Christine sacrificed herself for Voles sake.
h) Leonard Vole killed Christine.
3. Quote the text to show that
1. neither Sir Wilfred nor Brogan-Moore expected Christine to give evidence against her husband;
2. Leonard Vole hoped that Christine would get him out;
3. Sir Wilfred could not take in the fact that Vole was guilty of the crime.
4. Give a summary of Scenes 4, 5 and 6.
5. Talk of your impressions of the trial as if you were Christine Vole (Brogan-Moore, Sir Wilfred).
6. Make up conversations:
a) Imagine you are a reporter and Sir Wilfred has granted you an interview after the trial; act the interview;
b) between Mr Myers and Sir Wilfred; discuss the approaching trial of Christine Vole.
7. Find equivalents in the text for these word combinations and sentences.
1. ... 2. ? 3. , . 4. ; 5. . 6. . 7. . 8. ; 9. . 10. .
8. Mark (with a tick) the meaning in which the following words are used:
1)run
a) ;
b) ();
c) ().
2) even
a) ;
b) ;
c) .
3) release
a) (- );
b) ;
c) ( ).
4) verdict
a) ;
b) ;
c) .
5) execute
a) ();
b) ;
c) ().
6) charge
a) (.);
b) ;
c) .
9. Add as many words as you can which can be used with the following verbs. Write down sentences with each of the word-combinations.
to commit
to violate
to draw up
to plead
to summon
10. Insert the correct preposition:
a) The defendant holds..a little hope that he will be released.
b) Dont plead ..me. I wont give..
c) What verdict do you think the jury will bring..? I hope it will be not guilty.
d) You are running the risk..being caught..a trap and captured..the police!
e) Will you confine yourself..the subject we are discussing, Mr Smith, said the chairman.
f) I have the most serious objection..his being taken on.
g) A person accused cannot be found guilty..the crime except..the unanimous verdict..all the twelve members..the jury.
h) You will quite certainly be charged..perjury, tried..it and go..prison.
i) Before giving evidence a witness is called.. and is sworn..
j) That will make you an accomplice..the murder..the widow.
11. Match the following words and word-combinations with their synonyms:
| 1) to object (to) | a) to find sb. guilty |
| 2) Assailant | b) to violate the oath |
| 3) Public Prosecutor | c) jail |
| 4) to urge sb. | d) to hear a case |
| 5) to indict | e) to be summoned |
| 6) to stand trial | f) to bring to court |
| 7) Defendant | g) to testify (for/against) |
| 8) not guilty | h) innocent |
| 9) to try a case | i) client |
| 10) to be called (on) | j) Prosecuting lawyer |
| 11) to prosecute | k) to be on trial |
| 12) to give evidence (for/against) | l) to have an objection to |
| 13) Prison | m) to bring a charge (of) |
| 14) to bring in a verdict guilty | n) to plead (with sb.) |
| 15) to commit perjury | o) accused |
12. Choose the correct option.
|
|
|
1). He asked one of the most distinguished barristers in London.
a) to hear his case b) to plead his case in a court c) to charge him with crime
2). The jury brought in a verdict of not guilty and the man was.
a) executed b) sworn in c) released
3). The Defence appealed to the Judge.as they had come by evidence of the most startling nature.
a) to reopen the case b) to withdraw a question c) to caution
4). If you help him you will be regarded as
a) a surprise witness b) an assailant c) an accomplice
5). You have..! They will try you for perjury!
a) violated the oath b) committed robbery c) taken up the case
13. Fill in the blanks with articles wherever necessary.
1.... Judge warned... witness that before giving... testimony in... court she would have to swear... oath.
2. On hearing that Clyde Griffiths, who was charged with... killing of Roberta Alden, would soon be on... trial, his uncle asked Mr Mason,... well-known barrister, to plead his case in... court.
3. "If I were appearing for... Prosecution I would demand ten years imprisonment for... accused," he said.
4. She urged her brother to take her to... hearing of... case.
5. Many witnesses were brought to... court to give evidence.
6. "Will you produce... exhibit Number 5?" said... Counsel for... Prosecution to... Chief Inspector.
7. The accused had an impression that neither-... judge nor... jury believed...word he said.
8. Did you read in... papers that... case was reopened and some of... witnesses were to be recalled?
9. Who is regarded as... principal suspect?
10. The moment Clyde saw... jurors enter... jury-box he understood they had brought in... verdict of guilty.
11. "My Lord, Members of the jury, I will be brief in my final speech because I think that... Prosecution has proved... case of murder against... prisoner so obviously that... verdict of guilty must be the only possible conclusion," said... Counsel for... Prosecution.
14. Fill in the blanks with prepositions or adverbs.
1. It was only natural that the police should suspect Leonard Vole... murdering Mrs French.
2. If Brogan-Moore had believed that Vole was innocent... the murder, Sir Wilfred would never have taken... Vole's case.
3. See... it that the papers are prepared by the solicitor.
4. He was sure she was . something very unpleasant.
5. After you are sworn... you will be examined by the Defence.
6. You are charged... indictment that... the 20th day of December you committed a burglary... the local bank.
7. You heard the judge. You will quite certainly be charged... perjury, tried... it and go... prison," said Sir Wilfred to Christine.
8. A person accused cannot be found guilty... the crime except... the unanimous verdict... all the twelve members... the jury.
9. Don't plead... me. 1 won't give in.
10. The doctor says he holds... little hope.
11. "What verdict do you think the jury will bring...?" "I hope it will be "not guilty".
12. "Will you confine yourself... the subject we are discussing, Mr Smith," said the chairman.
13. "The proposals you have just made are not consistent... those advanced in your report," said the Manager.
15. Translate these sentences into English using active words.
1. ? . 2. , . . . , . 3. , . 4. , . 5. , ? 6. - . 7.
|
|
|
16. Topics for discussion.
My impressions of the film.
What verdict do you think the jury will bring in in Christine's case?
What verdict would you bring in if you were members of the jury?
Individual Task (Reading)
Read the text and learn new words. Get prepared to write a test.
Criminal Justice
(Rene Dupont is a young French, law student who, during a visit to London, stayed with an English family. His host, Mr Churchman, is now writing to tell Rene something about criminal justice in England.)
The Authors Club,
London, S.W.I.
5 November 19___
Dear Rene,
While you were staying with us during the summer, I remember you asked me a lot of questions about law in this country. I'm afraid I wasnt able to help you much. We read in our papers about trials in the law courts, but few law-abiding citizens are experts on the subject.
You asked me to tell you how criminal trials in England differ from criminal trials in Europe, and I couldn't tell you muchexcept, I remember, that I said that in England a person accused of crime must always be supposed innocent until he has been proved guilty. Newspapers mustn't describe the accused as 'the thief or 'the murderer'; he's 'the accused' or 'the prisoner'.
Lastmonth I served as a member of the jury at an important criminal trial, so I learnt quite a lot. I thought youd be interested,thats why Im writing. I'm giving you only some general impressions. The newspaper reports I'm sending separately give a fairly complete of the trial.
The prisoner was accused of robbing a bank and of wounding the night watchman who tried to stop him. He pleaded 'Not Guilty', so the trial was a long one. We had to listen to some long speeches and a lot of evidence.
I'm over fifty and this was my first experience of serving as a juror. We're liable for jury service between 21 and 60, so you see I might have been called on many years ago. Of the twelve members of the jury, three were women. Two of the men were small shop-keepers, one was a motor mechanic, another was a school teacher. I didn't find out what the others were, but you can see we were a mixed lot.
We had three stories to listen to. First there was the story told, by the counsel for the prosecution, then the story told by the defending counsel, and lastly the story told by the judge, a summing up of what was said by counsel and witnesses. By 'counsel' I mean the barrister or barristers employed on either side.
The prosecuting counsel began by telling the court what he intended to prove by evidence. Then he called his witnesses. These persons can say what they know only in answer to questions, so the examination of witnesses is very important. Every witness may be examined by the barrister who is defending the prisoner. This is the cross-examination. The judge can interfere if he thinks any of the questions are unfair. He always objects to what are called 'leading questions, questions that suggest answers instead of asking for information. (Perhaps you know the old example: When did you stop beating your wife?) Leading questions are allowed, however, in cross-examination.
|
|
|
The defending counsel then had his turn. He called new witnesses, including the accused man himself. These witnesses were then cross-examined by the prosecuting counsel.
The law of evidence is very strict. Every witness must, before he goes into the witness box, swear an oath, with his hand on the Bible, 'to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth' A witness may tell only what he himself knows to be true. 'Hearsay' evidence is not allowed. If, for example, Mr X saw a man forcing a way into a building, he can describe what he saw, and this is evidence. If he tells his wife about it, a description of what happened, given by the wife, is not evidence. She heard her husband's story, but she herself did not see what happened.
When all the evidence had been given, and the examination of the witnesses was finished, counsel for both sides made further speeches. Counsel for the Prosecution tried to show that, from the evidence they had heard, the jury could only find the prisoner guilty. Counsel for the Defence tried to show that the prisoner was not guilty. Then the judge summed up.
There are quite a lot of people in England who think that twelve ordinary men and women are not capable of understanding properly all the evidence given at criminal trials. I had doubts about this myself until I served as juror last month. I dont feel so doubtful now. Our judges are expert in summing up the evidence. They take notes during the trial. The judge, in the case I'm writing his summing up, he said to us, Will you please consider your evidence, and in the speeches made by counsel for both sides. He favoured neither prosecution nor defence. He told us what crime the accused would be guilty of, if the evidence supplied by the prosecution was true.
The members of the jury have to decide only the questions of fact. Questions of law are for the judge. So when the judge had finished his summing up, he said to us, Will you please consider your verdict?
We retired to a private room to do this. I was elected foreman (or chairman). You probably know that if the jury cannot agree they must be discharged and that there is then a new trial with a fresh jury. A verdict has to be unanimous. In this case we were not long in reaching a decision. The evidence against the accused man was so strong that we had no need to discuss it for long. English law requires that the guilt of an accused man must be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'. We had no doubt at all, so when we returned to the court and I was asked, 'Do you find the prisoner Guilty or Not Guilty?' I gave the answer 'Guilty'.
Here's another interesting point about the law of evidence. The police may know quite a lot about previous life of the accused man. They may have records to show that he is a habitual criminal, that he has often been accused of crime and proved guilty. The police may know quite a lot about the previous life of the accused. But this information cannot be given in court until after the jury have brought in their verdict.
In this case the police records showed that the prisoner had served three terms of imprisonment for robbery, one of them being robbery with violence. If we had known this before we considered our verdict, and if the evidence against the man had been weak, we might have been inclined to declare him guilty, in spite of weak evidence against him.
The prisoner's past record of crime, if he has one, is given after the verdict so that the judge may know better what sentence to pass. If the accused has never before been convicted of crime, the sentence is not likely to be severe, unless the crime is one of violence. First offenders are usually treated with sympathy. If, on the other hand, the accused man has a long record of convictions, the judge will pass a more severe sentence.
Theres one more point worth mentioning. The police officers who find and arrest an accused man may appear as witnesses at the trial. But they appear only as witnesses. They have no share in the examination of the accused. There is a clear division between the forces of the law who keep order and the forces who conduct trials in the law-courts.
Ive probably told you much you already know, and perhaps English law is not so different from French law as I think it is. But I hope youll find this letter interesting. You were here in the summer, when youll have a chance to attend a criminal trial? Wed be very pleased to see you again.
Best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
John Churchman
Module 4
CONSTITUTUION AND LAW
Assessment
|
|
|
| Presentation | 5 |
| Current grammar tests | 5 |
| Module test | 10 |
| Individual task | 5 |
