Материал: Uchebnik_dlya_sud_expertov

first defence witness. This is because he is entitled to sit in court throughout the trial, and it would not be right to allow him to call witnesses, and then tailor his evidence to the evidence they have given.

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.! .

221

5.The judge defines the law of the offence charged.

6.The judge summarizes what he sees as the main points of evidence.

7.The judge tells the jury that they must try to reach a unanimous verdict.

12.% ! . , #' $ -

. . '=

& ( .

.

13.. , # ,

. . -

.

1.The jury may draw inferences if a defendant does not give evidence.

2.What happens if a witness breaks his oath and tells lies?

3.He tried to clarify if they had conspired together in a carefully prepared plan to give false evidence.

4.The judge must tell the jury to consider the charges separately if there are two or more charges.

5.The judge asked the witness if he had seen the defendant on the crime scene.

6.The investigator tried to understand if the crime had been committed by a left-handed man.

7.He will now be told in open court if the defendant has committed any crimes before, and if he has, his list of previous convictions will be read out.

8.If a sentence of imprisonment is passed, the convicted person will be escorted to prison.

14. a) , .

1)there are / the truth about juries is that / some very good ones and some bad ones;

2)who play a bigger part in the discussion than others / there will inevitably be some people / some who will understand / some who will tend to believe the police / the legal nuances and the facts better / and others who will be much more defence minded / some who will be more patient than others;

3)there is anything fundamentally unsatisfactory / but there is very little evidence / in the way juries reach their verdicts / anecdotal or otherwise;

4)through the evidence systematically / did not necessarily work / it was found that juries / it was given / in the order;

5)the burden of proof - the presumption of innocence- / they / did not always discuss / which is at the heart of the system;

6)did not always fully understand facts / explained to them / they;

7)according to the law / but in the end / often reached the right result / they usually got the facts right / and they / even if they had imperfectly understood it;

8)to reach a correct conclusion / their collective commonsense / what matters is not so much / should understand every nuance of the law and every factual detail / should in the end use / but that they / that every member of the jury.

!) , .

The text speaks about…

Jurors do not discuss…

Jurors use…

223

15. . -

.

1.A " " -, # $ & .

4.A " , , $ & -$ & &$ -&.

5.A $, – % , ) * , &, $

& - .

& $ . . %?

16. / !. 8 . -

, – . , ! !

! !' # . - -

$ .

224