Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Jonathan Bradford kept an inn in Oxfordshire, on the London road to Oxford and bore a
respectable character. Mr. Hayes, a gentleman of fortune, being on his way to Oxford, on a visit
to a relation, put up at Bradfords. He there joined company with two gentlemen, with whom he
supped, and in conversation unguardedly mentioned that he had then about him a considerable
sum of money. In due time they retired to their respective chambers , the gentlemen to a twobedded room, leaving, as is customary with many, a candle burning in a corner. Some hours after
they were in bed, one of the gentlemen, being awake, thought he heard a deep groan in the
adjoining room and this being repeated, he softly woke his friend up. They listened together and
the groans increasing, as of one dying and in pain, they both instantly arose and proceeded
silently to the door of the next chamber, from which the groans seemed to come.
2. The door being ajar , they in the room. They entered, but it is impossible to paint their
consternation on perceiving a person weltering in his blood in the bed, and a man standing
over him with a dark lantern in one hand and a knife in the other! The man seemed as much
petrified as themselves, but his terror carried with it all the appearance of guilt.
3. The gentlemen soon discovered that the murdered person was the stranger with whom they
had that night supped and that the man who was standing over him was their host. They
seized Bradford directly, disarmed him of his knife, and charged him with being the
murderer. He assumed by the time the air of innocence, positively denied the crime, and
asserted that he came there with the same humane intentions as themselves, that hearing a
noise, which was succeeded by a groaning, he had got out of bed, struck a light, armed
himself with a knife for his defence and had but that minute entered the room before them.
These assertions were of little avail: he was kept in close custody till the morning, and then
taken before a neighbouring justice of the peace.
4. Though Bradford still denied the indications of guilt, the justice of the peace did not hesitate
to make use of this extraordinary expression, on writing his mittimus, Mr. Bradford, either
you myself committed this murder.
WORDS AND PHRASES
a two-bedded room o camera cu doua paturi
adjoining (adj)- alaturat, vecin
ajar (adj)- intredeschis
assertion (n ) afirmatie
avail n - folos
awake (adj) treaz
close (adj) strans, atent
customary - obisnuit
directly indata
fortune avere, noroc
groan geamat
guilt vinovatie
host gazda
humane omenesc
in due time la timpul cuvenit
innkeeper hangiu
justice of the peace judecator de pace
lantern- felinar
mittimus ordin de intemnitare
murderer ucigas
neighbouring invecinat
on a visit to in vizita la
on his way to in drum spre
positively categoric
relation ruda
to assume a(si) asuma
to assert a firma
to bear bore, borne a purta
to charge with a acuza de
to deny a nega, a respinge
to join a se alatura
to proceed a purcede
to put up a poposi
to seize a apuca, a insfaca
to strike, struck, struck a lovi, a izbi, a scapara
to sup, supped a cina
to welter a se scalda
unguardedly imprudent
Give the original lexical forms:
Respectable- unguardedly considerable customary adjoining softly instantly silently
appearance stranger directly murderer innocence positively groaning assertion justiceindication- expression neighbouring
QUESTIONS
1. What did Jonathan Bradford keep in Oxfordshire ?
2. On what road was the inn ?
3. What kind of character did Jonathan Bradford bear ?
4. What gentleman was Mr. Hayes ?
5. On what way was he ?
6. On what visit was he ?
7. Where did he put up?
8. Whose company did h join there ?
9. With whom did Mr. Hayes sup ?
10. What did he unguardedly mention in conversation?
11. What did they do in due time ?
12. What did the gentlemen leave, as is customary with many in a corner?
13. What did the gentlemen think he heard in the adjoining room ?
14. This being repeated, what did the gentlemen do then?
15. What did the gentlemen do together ?
16. Were the groans decreasing ?
17. What did they instantly do ?
18. Where did they silently proceed to ?
19. The door being ajar, what did they see in that room?
20. Did they stay outside ?
21. What did they perceive in that room ?
22. What did the man standing over the person weltering in blood have in his hands?
23. What did the man seem to be ?
24. What did the mans terror carry with it?
25. Who was the murdered person ?
26. Who was the man who was standing over him ?
27. What did they do directly?
F: I will avail myself with pleasure of your offer, but I should like to have some previous
knowledge of the routine of parliamentary business as I am often at a loss when reading the
newspapers.
3. E: What do you find embarrassing ?
F: Many expressions, such as the speaker, dividing the house , pairing off, a call of the
house,
4. E: I will endeavour in a few words, to give you an idea of your parliamentary proceedings.
5. F: You will greatly oblige me and you will give me great pleasure.
6. E: First then, what we call the Speaker is the president, who s chosen at every new parliament.
7. F: But I never see the word Speaker employed in the debates of the House of Lords.
E: No, the president of the House of Lords is called the Lord Chancellor,who is also sometimes
called the Keeper of the Great Seal.
8. F: Yes, I remember and I have also been told he is seated on a woolsack, isnt he?
E: Not only the Lord Chancellor, but also the twelve judges are seated on woolsacks.
9. F: that is a very singular custom, can you tell me the reason of it ?
E: It was first established, it is said, when woollen cloth was the principal article of English
manufacture, are consequently the growth and improvement of wool were considered as objects of
the highest importance.
WORDS AND PHRASES
as intrucat
call apel
Chancellor - cancelar
consequently in consecinta
embarrassing stanjenitor
growth crestere
House (of Parliament)camera a Parlamentului
keeper custode,detonator
manufacture- fabricatie, productie
previous anterior, precedent
seal sigiliu
singular- singular, deosebit
Speaker presedintele Camerei Comunelor
to avail oneself of a se folosi de
to be at a loss- a fi in dificultate
to be seated a fi asezat
to endeavour a se stradui
to give pleasure - a face placere
to pair off a se imparti cate doi
woollen de lana
woolsack sac de lana
QUESTIONS
1. Has the Foreiner ever been to the houses of Parliament?
2. How many times has the Foreigner been to the houses of Parliament?
3. Why does the Foreigner intend to go there again ?
4. What will the Englishman be able to give the Foreigner if he will go with him some day?
5. How will the Foreigner avail himself of the Englishmans offer ?
6. When is the Foreigner at a loss?
7. What are some of the many expressions the Foreigner finds embarrassing when reading the
newspapers?
8. What idea will the Englishman endeavour to give the Foreigner?
E: The contents or ayes pass out of the house into the lobby on the right,and the non-contents or noes
into the left. All then return into the house and the name of each member is marked, as he enters, on lists
prepared for the purpose
6. F: And are the lists generally rejected by a simple negative ?
E: No, they are often thrown out by an amendment, or by a member moving that the bill be read a
third time that day six months or that day three months.
7. F: And is a bill lost if such a motion is voted ?
E: Yes, because the mover takes care to name a day when Parliament will not be sitting, and
consequently the bill cannot be read that day.
8. F: Thank you for the information you have given to me: I shall not be able to read the debates with
more pleasure, because I shall understand them better.
9. E: There is also another expression, pairing off that is when the members of different sides wish to
go away, they go together, not to leave an advantage to either party.
10. F: And what is a call of the house?
E: When some very important measure is to be discussed the members are warned that their names
will be called over and that they must not be absent.
(Adapted from P. Sadler, Manuel classique de conversations francaises et anglaises, Paris )
QUESTIONS
1. What does the Foreigner intend to visit ?
2. What ides would the Foreigner like to have ?
3. Why will the Englishmen be able to give the Foreigner much information on that subject?
4. What is the first preliminary step in criminal cases?
5. What might a police magistrate in Britain be in other European countries?
6. Who is examined by the magistrate?
7. What happens to the bidder if the tends in any way to criminate him?
8. What does the magistrate do if the offence is of a trivial nature?
9. On what condition can a prisoner committed for trial be liberated?
10. What happens to him if he is not liberated on bail?
11. How often are the sessions of the criminal court held?
12. When do the prosecutor and witnesses go before the grand jury?
13. Why do the grand jury interrogate the prosecutor and witnesses?
14. May the prosecutor not go on with the prosecution?
15. How is the prosecutor bound over to go on with the prosecutor?
COURTS OF JUSTICE AND TRIALS IN ENGLAND (II)
1. F: And if he chooses to forfeit the pounds rather than appear?
E: That he can do, unless the crime be of a serious nature, in which case the prosecutor and witnesses
are liable to be tried for compounding felony.
2. F: What do you call compounding felony ?
E: It is conniving with a criminal, to enable him to escape from punishment due to his crime; for
instance, someone who has robbed you offers to restore the property if you will not carry on the
prosecution, or if you will keep back the witnesses.
3. F: And is that considered a punishable crime?
E: Yes, because it is endeavouring to defeat the ends of justice.
4. F: But if I am the only person injured, have I not the right to pardon ?
E: Not a crime which may compromise the safety of society which has been attacked in your person
and which it is your duty, as a good citizen, to protect, even at the expense of some personal
sacrifice, rather than to expose other persons to the same inconvenience, by letting a robber loose
amongst them.
5. F: And what are the proceedings before the grand jury?
E: The witnesses and the prosecutor are interrogated and if the crime be sufficiently attested, the bill
of indictment is sent to the clerk of the arraigns, after which the causes are called in rotation to be
tried by the judge and jury.
6. F: Have the accused in England the right of challenging the jurors?
E: Yes, they can challenge a certain number without assigning any cause, and afterwards as many
they can show reasonable cause of objection against.
7. F: That is a very important privilege.
E: It is so, and foreigners in England possess a still more important one.
8. F: What is that ?
E: It is the right of demanding that half the jury which is to judge them should also be foreigners.
F: That is indeed a most admirable institution and worthy of a civilized country.
3. Each autumn the monarch goes to Westminster for the State Opening of Parliament and reads out
the speech which sets out the Governments plans for the year ahead.
4. General Elections are held every five years, though the Prime Minister may call one earlier, and
if an MP dies or retires a by-election is held in her or his constituency. MPs win their seats in
Parliament by a majority vote(or first-past-the post system).
5. After a general election, the leader of the party which has the most seats in the House of
Commons becomes Prime Minister, who chooses the Chancellor of the Exchequer(for the
Treasury), the Foreign Secretary (for Foreign Affairs), the Home Secretary (for domestic affairs),
and others, to form the Cabinet. In the House of Commons they sit on the front bench, and other
MPs from their party sit behind them (back-benchers).The main opposition party sits in a similar
arrangement. In the centre is the Speaker, who keeps order during debates.
WORDS AND PHRASES
ahead= inainte, In fata,urmator
alone= singur, doar
archbishop=arhiepiscop
assent= consimtamint, aprobare
bishop=episcop
by-election-=alegeri partiale
Chancellor of the Exchequer= ministru de finante(UK)
constituency= circumscriptie electorala
domestic= intern
Established Church= Biserica statornicita, biserica de stat din Anglia
Foreign Secretary=ministrul de externe
Head= sef
Home Secretary= ministru de interne
Lord spiritual= lord spiritual/bisericesc
Lord temporal= lord laic / secular
Lower = inferior
Peer=pair, nobil, membru al camerei Lorzilor
peeress= nobila, membra al camerei Lorzilor
rule of law= domina legii
Speaker= presedinte al Camerei Comunelor
state(adj)= solemn
that is= adica
to advise= a sfatui, a consilia
to alter= a modifica
to lie-lay-lain= a rezida, a consta
to prologue= a proroga, a amana
to repeal= a abroga, a revoca, a anula
to retire= a se retrage, a se pensiona
to set-set- set= e expune
Treasury= ministru de finante(UK)
upper= superior
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2. Less serious criminal and civil cases are dealt with in that Magistrates Courts, where there is no
jury but a case is usually heard by two or three magistrates. Most magistrates, also known as
Justice of the Peace (JPs), work part-time and are not paid. They are given some training but do
not need legal qualifications. A clerk of the court advises them on the law. When they have heard
a case, the magistrates reach a verdict and where necessary decide what the punishment should
be.
3. Magistrates also decide what should happen to somebody between the time they are arrested and
the time when the case is heard in court. They may grant bail (allow the person to be free until
the trial, if a sum of money is paid) or remand her or him in custody (keep the person in prison
until the trial).
4. More serious cases are heard by judges in the crown courts (for criminal cases) or the county
courts (for civil cases). In civil cases, and in cases where the defendant has pleaded guilty, the
judge sits alone, without a jury, and after hearing the case, makes a decision, or judgement.
5. If the person accused of a crime pleads not guilty, he or she is tried before a jury. When the
evidence has been heard, the judge goes over the facts (the summing-up) and explains the law to
the jury. If they find the accused guilty, the judge passes sentence, that is, decides what the
punishment should be.
6. Solicitors are lawyers who do legal business for individuals and companies and also act as
advocates, representing clients in court.
7. Barristers used to be the only lawyers allowed to appear as advocates in the higher courts. One
advocate(the Counsel for the Prosecution) tries to prove in court that the accused committed the
crime. The advocate representing the defendant (the Counsel for the Defence) tries to show that
he or she is innocent. They call witnesses and question them about the facts of the case.
8. The jury in England and Wales is made up of twelve ordinary people aged between 18 and 65.
When they have heard the evidence and judges summing-up, they retire to a special room to
decide whether to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty. If they all agree, they have reached a
unanimous verdict. If no more than two people disagree, the judge may ask for a majority
verdict. If the accused is found guilty, he or she has the right to appeal and ask for the case to be
heard by a higher court.
WORDS AND PHRASES
Counsel for the Defence - aparator, aparare
Counsel for the Prosecution- procurer
defendant - acuzat, inculpat, parat (BE- in process civil, AE- proces penal)
in court in tribunal
Justice of the Peace (JP)- judecator de pace
summing-up rezumat, rezumare
to appeal a face apel
to pass sentence- a da o sentinta
to remand in custody- a cerceta in stare de retinere
to return a verdict a da / pronunta un verdict
what the punishment should be care ar trebui sa fie pedeapsa
QUESTIONS
1. What do the police do when somebody has committed a crime?
2. Where is the case then heard?
3. What is the case treated as?
4. What do the courts also deal with?
5. What are civil cases?
6. Are there any juries in the Magistrates Courts?
charge responsabilitate
customs duties taxe vamale
in force in vigoare (despre legi)
instead in schimb
provision prevedere
regarding privind
to break(broke, broken) a incalca o lege
to call a convoca
to coin a bate moneda
to concern a privi
to forge a falsifica
to frame a elabora
to interfere with a se amesteca
QUESTIONS
1.How many states formed an alliance during the War of Independence?
2.What did Congress call in 1787?
3.Why was that convention called?
4. What is the highest court of appeal in the country?
5.Is the American system of government centralized?
Care- ingrijire
Commissioner- comisar
Convenient convenabil,corespunzator
Coroner medic legist, judecator de instructie
County comitat
Court-house tribunal,
Deed
act, document
Even though- chiar daca
Expenditure cheltuiala
In all things- in toate privintele
Parish parohie
Precinct circumscriptie
Recorder arhivar
Relief asistenta sociala
Seat sediu
Superintendent of schools- inspector scolar
Territories and Dependencies Teritoriile Dependente ale SUA
To hold(held, held)- a judeca, a fi in instanta
To levy(levied, levied) a percepe(impozite)
To maintain a intretine
To see fit a gasi nimerit, a crede de cuviinta
Township urbe
QUESTIONS
1.
Can Territories and Dependencies take part in the national government?
2.
When can Territories and Dependencies take part in the national government?
3.
Who elects the governor and other executive officals?
4.
What is the Legislature composed of?
5.
What system have several States also adopted?
6.
Why have several States adopted the system of direct legislature?
7.
What are some convenient divisions of the States for administrative purposes called?
8.
What are they called in Louisiana?
9.
Who are the county officers elected by as a rule?
10. What are the county officers commonly regarded as?
THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN THE UNITES STATES
1. The legal system in the Unites States is similar in many ways to the English system. One of
the main differences is the existence of the United States Constitution which is interpreted by
the highest court, the Supreme Court. The nine Supreme Court judges, who are appointed by
the President and approved by the Senate , can only be removed from office by impeachment.
2. Judges. Federal judges are also appointed for life by the President. They deal with Federal
law, which applies to the country as a whole, and with important cases involving citizens
from different states. State judges hear cases involving the law of a particular state. They
hold office for ten years and are usually elected, or confirmed in office by election.
3. The jury. The number of people who make up a jury varies from a state to state, but efforts
are made to ensure that they represent a fair cross-section of society. Both the defence and
the prosecution are allowed to reject a certain number of jury candidates. Except the minor
cases, the defendant in a criminal case has the right to be tried by a jury, and many civil cases
are also heard by a jury. In most states, the task of the jury is only to decide whether the
defendant is innocent or guilty, while it is the judge who passes sentence.
4. The attorneys, who represent clients in court, have been trained at law schools and are
licensed to practise only in certain states. If they wish to practise in a different state, they may
have to take another exam. In a criminal case, the prosecution attorney is appointed by the
District Attorney to prosecute the defendant. The defence attorney will be provided by the
Public Defenders Office if the defendant cannot afford to engage his or her own lawyer. The
prosecution may agree to charge the defendant with a less serious offence if she or he agrees
to plead guilty. This is known as plea bargaining.
WORDS AND PHRASES
As a whole in ansamblu, in totalitate
Attorney (AE) avocat al statului, mandatar
Bargaining negociere
Cross- section sectiune transversala
Impeachment acuzare a unui functionar public
In many ways in multe privinte
Plea pledoarie
Task sarcina
To afford a-si permite
To charge with a acuza de
To hold office- a detine functia
To involve a implica, a angrena
To license a autoriza
To train a pregati
QUESTIONS
1. Is the legal system in the United States different from the English system ?
2. What is one of the main differences between the two legal systems?
3. How many Supreme Court judges are there?
4. Who approves the Supreme Court judges?
5. How can they be removed from office?
6. Who appoints Federal judges for life?
7. What does Federal law apply ?
8. What cases do State judges hear?
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer in the United States. He represents the US in
legal matters generally, and gives advice and opinion when requested by the President or by executive
department states.
2. While the President has a special counsel, the White House also calls on the Attorney General for legal
advice, particularly on bills and resolutions passed in Congress and sent to the chief executive for his
signature. The President also call on the Attorney General for legal opinions concerning the exercising of
special emergency powers. This was particularly true during World War II and in the two years that
followed.
3. The Attorney General has a wide discretion about what laws to enforce and about what actions he will
regard as violations of the law. His decision will not me made without reference to the policies of the
President and those in turn are strongly influenced in politics.
4. With all the political forces that influence the interpretation of the Constitution and the laws , from the
choices of the Attorney General to the personalities of the Supreme Court justices, the law is evidently not
the simple block granite that the layman might wish he could have under his feet. The law, in fact, is less
certain today than it was thought to be in 1787.
5. The Solicitor General is the second ranking officer of the Department of Justice assuming the
duties of Attorney General in his absence. He represents the Government in cases before the
Supreme Court, and at the request of the Attorney General, in cases affecting the US in state
courts or elsewhere.
6. The main unit of the Justice Department is the Federal Bureau of Investigations.(FBI). The
Bureau is in effect an intelligence agency for the Justice Department, gathering information
on criminal matters which come within the jurisdiction of the Department. Functions of the
FBI include the investigation of espionage, sabotage and matters pertaining to the internal
violations of approximately 100 Federal statutes. The FBI deals with kidnappers, bank
robbers and many other violators of Federal law, and is active in counterespionage. It does
field work of investigating the loyalty of Government employees. Other secret services,
located in the Treasury, pursue counterfeiters, smugglers, narcotics traders, income tax
dodgers.
All such persons when caught are prosecuted in Federal courts by the Department of Justice or the local US
attorneys under its supervision.
appellate de apel
close strans
elderly varstnic
likely probabil (cu vb pus la viitor)
on the court in tribunal
proceedings process(e)
somewhat intrucatva, oarecum
therefore prin urmare
through to pana in (inclusiv)
throughout in tot
to arise (arose, arisen) a parea, a se ivi
to ordain a meni, a statornici
to rest a rezida, a se sprijini, a se afla in
QUESTIONS
1.
What responsibility has the judicial branch ?
2.
According to which article of the Constitution the judicial power of the US shall be vested in
one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish?
3.
How many Federal Courts are throughout the country ?
4.
What does final authority rest in ?
5.
What is the highest tribunal in the US?
6.
What justices does it include ?
7.
Who are they appointed by?
8.
Who are they approved by ?
9.
What does original jurisdiction mean ?
10. Can the Supreme Court alter the Constitution ?
11.
THE SYSTEM OF COURTS IN THE UNITES STATES (II)
1. The Courts of Appeals were organized to relieve the Supreme Court of pressure resulting from
the accumulation of appellate cases. In general theses courts have final jurisdiction over the
great mass of litigation not involving constitutional questions. Parties from different states have
their case heard in a high Federal Court without going to the Supreme Court.
2. A US Court of Appeals generally three judges.(The Chief Justice and associate justices of the
Supreme Court are authorized to assign additional circuit court judges to such courts as may
need them).
3. A Court of Appeals accepts the facts sent up to it by the lower courts and therefore does not
need a jury. Its work is to decide on disputed questions of law. As a rule the Court of Appeals
sits with three judges together on the bench. This courts principle duty is to protect the
Supreme Court from routine cases of no political importance. Its decision may be so clear and
well grounded that the Supreme Court will refuse to go into the question further, in which case
the Court of Appeals has stated the supreme law of the land, at least for the exact
circumstances of the case.
4. The inferior courts in the federal system have somewhat less political importance, since their
principal duty is to settle routine cases where no constitutional question is at stake. At the
ground level are the District Courts with about 200 district judges scattered over the United
States. These courts handle both civil and criminal cases that come under the jurisdiction of the
Federal laws.
5. The District Courts have original jurisdiction in nearly all cases. That is, they collect the facts.
The district court is the only Federal court where trials are held, juries are used, and witnesses
are called. Criminal cases are tried by a judge sitting with a jury whose duty is to hear the
evidence, the speeches of prosecuting and defending counsel, the remarks of the judge and
reach a unanimous decision as to whether the accused is guilty or not of a crime he is charged
with(of the crime charged to him). Under the common law, a trial jury must consists of twelve
persons and their decision must be unanimous. The national government and many states
authorize trial by less than twelve in certain cases and a decision by less than a unanimous
vote. Generally the jury is to judge of the facts, though some states permit the jury to
determine the law and the punishment as well as the facts.
2. The bulk of judicial work in Federal courts is conducted by the district courts. About 100,000 cases a year
are tried, mostly civil cases involving such matters as admiralty law, bankruptcy proceedings, civil rights
and postal laws.
3. The parties may appeal the decision either on the ground that the court made an error in concluding the
trial, or on the ground that the law is unconstitutional. The appeals go up to the middle layer of Federal
Courts, the circuit Courts of Appeals.
4. Outside the three-layer Federal court system there are a number of special courts, such as the Court of
Customs and Patent Appeals.The special courts have been established to handle cases that are difficult for a
judge to understand unless he devoted his whole time to this one type of problem. The special courts are on
a borderline between strictly judicial courts and the administrative agencies with practically judicial powers
Through the government regulates certain kinds of business.
5. In the Unites States, the judiciary (which is a collective term for courts and judges)is divided into the
national(federal) and the state judiciary. Each is independent of the other with the exception that the Unites
States Supreme Court may, under special circumstances involving federal questions, review a state court
decision. Jurisdiction of particular courts or judges is by either the national or state constitutions and laws.
6. The states al have their own courts, a Supreme Court, superior courts, local courts. Some states have
courts of small claims.
7. The State courts are set up in a system that looks like the system of Federal courts, with a Supreme Court
at the top that has the power to declare State laws unconstitutional. The State courts, however, deal with a
different kind of law. Whereas the Federal courts speak mainly of what they find in the Federal Constitution,
the State courts rest upon all the law there is, except what has been delegated to the Federal Government.
Some of the State law is found in the State Constitution and the statutes passed by the legislature. But a
large part of it is the common law of England, inherited and adapted by court decisions to the conditions and
moral judgements of the American people. In Louisiana much of the inherited law is French, brought down
from the code Napoleon.
8. In most of the States the lowest courts are the magistrates or police courts, where the judge or magistrate
(the justice of the peace) can send a drunk to jail for thirty days, or fine a motorist for speeding, without the
aid of a jury. Some of the states have special traffic courts, probate courts or other special courts among their
courts of small claims. The magistrate (the judge of the lowest court) may also have authority to receive a
man accused of murder and decide whether to hold him for trial in a higher court.
WORDS AND PHRASES
admiralty Ministerul Marinei
admiralty law dreptul maritim
aid ajutor
as many as four chiar patru; patru in cap, patru cu totul
at least cel putin
bankruptcy bancruta, faliment
borderline linie de granite
consent consimtamant
courts of small claims tribunal pentru actiuni minore
customs- vama
judiciary magistratura, corpul judecatoresc
layer strat, nivel
mainly in principal
motorist automobilist
on the ground that pe temeiul ca
panel panel ;complet de judecata
involves one state law, it can be appealed to no further. Each states highest court has the final
say on interpretation of the state laws and the state constitution. If a state supreme court decision
involves some federal law or constitutional issue it can be appealed to the US Supreme Court.
STEPS IN A TRIAL
The following is a short explanation of the steps in either a criminal or a civil war.
1. Opening Statement by Plaintiff or Prosecutor Plaintiffs attorney (in civil cases) or
prosecutor(in criminal cases) explains to the trier of fact the evidence to be presented as proof of
the allegations (unproven statements) in the complaint or indictment.
2. Opening statement by Defense Defendants attorney explains evidence to be presented to
deny the allegations made by the plaintiff or prosecutor.
3. Direct examination by Plaintiff or Prosecutor Each witness for the plaintiff or prosecution is
questioned. Other evidence (e.g. Documents, physical evidence) in favour of the plaintiff or
prosecution is presented.
4. Cross examination by Defense - The defense has the opportunity to question each witness.
Questioning is designed to break down the story or to discredit the witness in the eyes of the jury.
5. Motions if the prosecutions or plaintiffs basic case has not been established from the
evidence introduced, the judge can end the case by granting the defendants motion to dismiss (in
civil cases) or by entering a directed verdict (the criminal cases).
6. Direct Examination by Defense Each defense witness is questioned.
7. Cross-Examination by Plaintiff - Each defense witness is cross-examined.
8. Closing Statement by Plaintiff - Prosecution or plaintiffs attorney reviews all the evidence
presented (noting uncontradicted facts), states how the evidence has satisfied the elements of the
charge and asks for a finding of guilty(in criminal cases) or for the plaintiff (in civil cases).
9. Closing Statement by Defense Same as closing statement by prosecution/ plaintiff. The
defense asks for a finding of not guilty (in criminal cases) or for the defendant (in civil cases).
10. Rebuttal Argument Prosecutor or plaintiff the right to make additional closing arguments.
11. Jury instructions - Judge instructs jury as to the law that applies in the case.
12. Verdict In most cases, a unanimous decision is required one way or other. If the jury cannot
reach a unanimous decision, it is said to be a hung jury, and the case may be tried again.
WORDS AND PHRASES
allegation afirmatie nedovedita , ca mijloc de aparare
argument argument,controversa, pledoarie
attorney avocet, mandatar,procuror(AE)
charge acuzatie, vina
complaint plangere, reclamatie
cross-examination- interogatoriu contradictoriu (luat de avocatul partii opuse)
defendant acuzat, inculpate, parat
directed verdict verdict dirijat/ indrumat
evidence marturie, proba orala, depozitie, dovada
finding constatare
finding of guilty constatare a vinovatiei
guilty vinovat
hung jury juriu neunanim, juriu cu decizie neunanima
QUESTIONS
1.How many steps are there in a trial and what are they?
2. In the opening statement by plaintiff, in civil cases, who explains to the trier of fact the evidence to be
presented as proof of the allegations in the complaint or indictment?
3.In the opening statement by prosecutor, in criminal cases what does the prosecutor explain to the trier of
fact ?
4. What are allegations ?
5. In opening statement by defense, who explains evidence to be presented to deny the allegations made
by the plaintiff or prosecutor?
6a. In the direct examination by plaintif or prosecutor, who is questioned?
6b. What other evidence in favour of the plaintiff or prosecution is presented ?
8a. In the cross-examination, who has the opportunity to question each witness ?
8b. What is questioning designed to do ?
PRELIMINARY CRIMES
1. Certain types of behaviour take place before the commission of a crime but are nevertheless complete
crimes in themselves. These offenses solicitation, attempt, and conspiracy- give the police the opportunity
to prevent the intended crime. Each offense can be punished even if the harm intended never occurred.
2. Solicitation
A number of states make it a crime for a person to solicit (e.g.ask, command, urge, advise)
WORDS AND PHRASES
a poor shot un slab tintas
actual real, efectiv
agreement acord, intelegere, invoiala
attempted murder incercare de omor
commission comitere
conviction - condamnare
draft recrutare
evasion evadare, eludare
harm vatamare, paguba
means mijloc,
mere- simplu
neighbourhood vecinatate, cartier, apropiere
nerve tarie (sufleteasca)
nevertheless- totusi, cu toate acestea
overt act act manifest
overt (adj) evident, clar
publicly in mod public
rally intrunire
solicitation- solicitare
threat to amenintare
to accomplish a realize, a indeplini
to advise a sfatui
to agree to- a fi de acord
to cite a cita
to criticize- a critica
to lack a lipsi
to miss a-i scapa
to prevent a preveni
to strike against a lovi, a da in
to take a step- a face un pas
to urge a indemna
UNIT 24
CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
1. Crimes against the person include homicide, assault, battery and rape. All of those are serious offenses.
However, the law protects the defendant by defining the various levels of these crimes and by considering the
circumstances of each offense.
2. Homicide the killing of one human being by another- is the most serious of all acts. Homicides may be
either noncriminal or criminal.
3. Noncriminal homicide Some homicides are not crimes at all. Noncriminal homicide is a killing that is
justifiable or excusable and for which the killer is deemed fautless , such as the killing of an enemy soldier in
wartime, the killing of a condemned criminal by an executioner, the killing by a police officer of a person who
is committing a serious crime and who poses a threat of death or serious harm and killing in self-defense.
4. Criminal Homicide. Murder, the most serious form of criminal homicide, is a killing that is done with
malice, i.e. with intent to kill or seriously harm. To reduce the punishment for less grievous homicides, most
states now have statues that classify murder according to the killers state of mind of the circumstances
surrounding the crime.
5. First-degree murder is a killing that is predetermined, deliberate and done with malice.
6. Second- degree murder is a killing that is done with malice but without predetermination (ie. the intent to
kill did not exist until just before the murder itself.)
7. Felony murder is a killing that takes place during the commission of certain felonies, such as arson, rape,
robbery or burglary. Felony murder includes most killing committed during a felony, even if accidental. Most
states consider felony murder to be first-degree murder.
8. Voluntary-manslaughter is an intentional killing committed under circumstances that mitigate (lessen) but
do not justify or excuse the killing. Manslaughter is based on the idea that even the reasonable person may
lose self-control and act rashly is sufficiently provoked.
9. Involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional killing resulting from conduct so reckless that it causes
extreme danger of death or bodily injury. An example would be a killing that results from playing with a gun
known to be loaded.
10. Negligent homicide is the causing of death through criminal negligence.
11. Negligence is the failure to exercise a reasonable or ordinary amount of care in a situation that causes
harm to someone. Some states classify death by gross negligence as involuntary manslaughter. The most
common form of negligent homicide is vehicular, or automobile, homicide. This is a killing that results from
operating a motor vehicle in a reckless and grossly negligent manner. It may lead to a civil suit for damages,
but it is a usually not considered a crime unless the death results from gross or extreme negligence.
(adapted from Street law..
WORDS AND PHRASES
according to in acord cu, in functie de
arson incendiere
battery bataie
being fiinta
bodily corporal, trupesc
burglary spargere, furt
damages daune
degree- grad
executioner- calau
faultless fara vina, nevinovat
grievous grav, dureros,
gross- grav, flagrant
grossly grav,
malice premeditare, ura, vrajmasie
manslaughter omor, omor din culpa
negligent neglijent
noncriminal nepenal
rape viol
rashly nechibzuit, nesabuit,imprudent ?
reckless- nechibzuit, nesabuit,imprudent
state of mind stare de spirit
statute lege, ordonanta, act emis de parlament
suit proces, actiune judiciara
to condemn a condamna
to deem a comsidera, a socoti
to harm a dauna, a prejudicia, a pagubi
to lead,led,led- a duce la, a conduce la
to lessen- a micsora, a reduce
to mitigate a micsora, a diminua, a domoli
to operate a explata, a actiona, a functiona
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
UNIT 25
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY (I)
The category of crimes against property includes crimes in which property is destroyed and crimes
in which property is stolen or otherwise taken against the will of the owner.
Arson is the willful and malicious burning of another persons property, whether owned by the
accused or not. Moreover, any property that is burned with the intent to defraud an insurance
company is usually a separate crime.
Vandalism, also known as malicious mischief, is the willful destruction of, or damage to, the
property of another. It includes such things as breaking windows, ripping down fences, flooding
basements, and breaking off car aerials. Depending on its extent, vandalism can be either a felony
or a misdemeanor.
Larceny is the unlawful taking and carrying away of the property of another with intent to steal it.
Depending on the value of the stolen item,(more or less than $100, larceny is divided into two
classes: grand, which is a felony and petty, which is a misdemeanor.
The crime of larceny also includes keeping lost property when a reasonable method exists for
finding the owner, or if you keep property delivered to you by mistake.
6. Shoplifting is a form of larceny. It is the crime of taking items from a store without paying or
intending to pay for them. Some states have a separate crime called concealment. This is the crime
of attempted shoplifting.
7. Embezzlement is the unlawful taking of property by someone to whom it was entrusted. In recent
years, a number of states have merged the crimes of larceny, false pretenses, and embezzlement
into the statutory crime of theft.
8. Robbery is the unlawful taking of property from a persons immediate possession by force or
intimidation. In fact, it involves two harms: the theft of property and actual or potential physical
harm to the victim. The difference between robbery and larceny is the element of force used.
Robbery is almost always a felony, but many states impose stricter penalties for armed robberies.
9. Extortion, popularly called blackmail, is the use of threats to obtain the property of another.
Extortion statutes generally cover threats to do the future physical harm, destroy property or injure
someones character or reputation.
WORDS AND PHRASES
Aerial- antenna ( de radio)
Armed- inarmat
Basement- subsol
Blackmail- santaj
Burning- ardere, incendiere
By mistake- din greseala
Concealment- ascundere, dosire
Damage- paguba
Embezzlement- delapidare
Extent -intindere, masura,
Extortion- stoarcere de bani, escrocare
Fence- gard
Grand larceny- furt mare
Malicious- rauvoitor
Mischief- rau, paguba, daune, neajuns
Moreover- mai mult decat atat
Otherwise- altminteri, altfel
Petty larceny- furt mic, marunt
Pretense(AE)pretence (BE)- pretext, simulare
Statute- lege,ordonanta, act emis de parlament
Statutory- statutar, legal, reglementar
Statutory crime- crima stabilita prin lege
Store- magazine, pravalie
Strict- sever, aspru
Theft- hotie
To defraud- a escroca
To deliver- a livra, a inmana
To destroy- a distruge
To entrust- a incredinta
To impose- a impune
To merge- a combina, a fuziona, a contopi
To rip(ripped) down- a smulge
Unlawful- nelegiuit
Willful- voit, deliberat, intentionat
UNIT 26
To alter- a modifica
To enact- a decreta, a dispune
To erase- a sterge
To imply- a implica, a presupune
To overcome- a infrange, a birui, a trece de
To prohibit- a interzice
to remove- a indeparta
trade- comert
uttering- colportare, punere in circulatie a unui fals
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
UNIT 27
TYPES OF TORTS
There are three major categories of conduct for which tort liability exists: intentional
wrongs,negligence, and activities for which strict liability is imposed. An intentional tort occurs
when you take some action with the intent of injuring a person, his or her property or both.
In many instances intentional torts are also crimes. In these cases, the defendant can be prosecuted
by the state as well as sue by the plaintiff. However, punishing a criminal does not usually make up
for the harm to the victim. A civil tort action is used to recover monetary damages.
The most common tort is negligence. Negligence liability results when a persons failure to use
reasonable care causes harm.
Strict liability differs from both negligence and intentional wrongs. It applies when the defendant
is engaged in an activity so dangerous that there is a serious risk of harm even of he or she with
utmost care. In a strict liability case, the plaintiff can automatically recover from the defendant.
There is no need to prove that the defendant was either negligent or intended to cause harm in
order to recover damages. Demolishing buildings is so dangerous that contractors are
automatically responsible if a passerby is injured. It is argued that persons involved in dangerous
activities will take more precautions if they know they are automatically responsible for injuries.
Strict liability can also be used when a person is harmed by dangerous animals (in some cases by
pets, too). Consumers now use it when they sue manufacturers or sellers for an injury caused by an
unreasonably dangerous product that is defective.
Remember that not all injuries to you or your property will lead to a recovery under tort law. In
some instances, harmful behaviour may not be a tort, or the person causing the harm may have a
legal defense to a tort action. In still other cases, the defendant may be liable but may simply be
too poor to pay for the harm to the plaintiff.
UNIT 28
INTENTIONAL TORTS (I)
1. Tort law is designed to protect persons and their property from harm.
2. Intentional torts occur when an action is taken to deliberately cause harm and are of two general
types: those causing injury to persons and those causing harm to property.
3. A person who proves that someone else committed an intentional tort against him or her can
recover damages to make up for the harm caused. Because the award compensates for harm caused
by the defendant, they are called compensated or compensatory damages.
4. Compensatory damages can also include past and future wages lost and pain and suffering. The
plaintiff has to prove any future losses with reasonable certainty. Juries decide how much money
will fully compensate the injured person for pain and suffering.
5. If the plaintiff can recover limited damages even when unable to prove that economic harm
occurred, they are called nominal damages, i.e. they are symbolic rather than actual
compensation.
6. In cases in which the defendants conduct was truly outrageous , courts sometimes award punitive
damages,as they also punish the defendant. They are intended to warn others not to engage in such
conduct.
7. People sued for intentional torts may not have to pay any damages at all, even though they did
exactly what the plaintiff claims and then the defendant may have legal defense.
8. Torts that injure persons
9. Assault- a threat or attempt to commit a battery that puts the victim in fear of immediate harmand battery- an act intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with another person-can be
both crimes and intentional torts.
10. The intent required or simply the intent to bring about a result that invades the legal rights of
another person.
11. Depending on the seriousness of the injury in the case of an assault, the plaintiff can recover
damages for mental disturbance, such as fright or embarrassment, along with any physical illness
that directly results from the assault, while the damages recoverable from a battery are those for
any harm caused by the physical contact and are usually greater than for assault.
12. Defenses to intentional torts. The most common defense to a battery is consent. A defendant
using this defense argues that the plaintiff consented to the harmful contact and thus gave up the
right to sue later.
13. The consent which is simply assumed based on the particular situation is called implied consent.
In an emergency when it is impossible to sign a form, the law will assume your consent has been
given.
14. Another defense to an intentional tort is called privilege which justifies that would otherwise be a
tort. Perhaps the best-known privilege is self-defense, which allows you to defend yourself against
an attacker. Self-defense rules are similar to those in criminal laws.
WORDS AND PHRASES
Act- fapta
Along with- impreuna cu, odata cu, alaturi de
As- intrucat
Award- judecata, sentinta; adjudecare;daune-interese
Based on- pe baza, bazat pe
Certainty- certitudine
Conduct- comportament
Embarrassment- jena; dificultate
Even though- chiar daca
Fright-Frica
Fully complet, pe deplin
Loss- pierdere
Mental disturbance- deranjament psihic
Offensive- infractional
Outrageous- criminal, excesiv
Rather than- mai degraba decat
Recover damages- a obtine daune-interese
Suffering- suferinta
Assume- a presupune
Award- a adjudeca
Bring about-a produce, a provoca
Claim- a pretinde, a cere
Compensate- a compensa, a despagubi
Invade- a invada, a viola
Put in fear of- a face sa se teama de
Warn- a avertiza
Truly- cu adevarat
Wages salariu, plata
UNIT 29
INTENTIONAL TORTS (II)
1. Infliction of mental distress and false imprisonment.
Individuals are also protected against harm because they can sue for the torts of infliction of mental
distress and false imprisonment. Being able to sue for infliction of mental distress protects peace of mind.
Actual physical injury is not required for the plaintiff to recover it. However, courts do require that the
defendants conduct be quite outrageous and that the plaintiff prove extreme distress. Mere insults are not
enough to form the basis of a lawsuit for mental distress.
2. Extremely outrageous conduct by restaurants, hotels, or transportation companies can sometimes form
the basis for the tort of mental distress. These businesses and certain others have a special obligation to
deal with the public in a courteous manner.
3. Recovery for this tort is sharply limited to keep the legal system from being flooded with lawsuits
brought by persons suffering from unkind, inconsiderate acts. In addition, there is some value for a free
society in letting angry people blow off steam without fear of being sued. Among the legal defenses that
can be used are that the defendants conduct was not outrageous, that the plaintiff is overly sensitive, and
that a reasonable person would not suffer extreme distress as a result of the defendants conduct.
4. Being able to sue for false imprisonment protects a persons interest in being free from unreasonable
restraint. False imprisonment does not mean that a person must be kept in jail, or even arrested by the
police in order to recover for this tort. It occurs when someone intentionally and wrongfully confines
another person against his or her will.
5. For example, assume that a restaurant manager knows that an employee is working in the
walk-in refrigerator. The manager tells him to get out so she can lock up and go home. When he takes too
long, she shuts the refrigerator door and leaves for the night. The restaurant manager has committed the
tort of false imprisonment.
7. Suspected shoplifters sometimes sue shopkeepers who have detained them. In balancing an
individuals right to be free from confinement and a shopkeepers right to protect his or her
property from theft, the law recognizes a shopkeepers privilege to temporarily detain a person
suspected of shoplifting. However, shopkeepers must act reasonably, using no more restraint than
is necessary to protect their property.
WORDS AND PHRASES
As a result of- ca rezultat, ca o consecinta
Assume that- sa presupunem ca
Business- intreprindere
Confinement privare de libertate
Courteous- curtenitor, politicos
Inconsiderate neatent, lipsit de atentie
Infliction- pricinuire, cauzare ( a unui prejudiciu)
Lawsuit- proces judiciar
Mental distress siferinta psihica
Overly excesiv de
Peace of mind- liniste sufleteasca
Quite- cu totul, intru totul, foarte
Recovery recuperare, redobandire, revendicare
Restraint restrictie, restrangere, constragere
Sharply- net
Shopkeeper proprietar de magazine
Shoplifter hot de magazine
To balance a cantari
To blow steam a scoate fum, a spumega
To confine- a inchide, a priva de libertate
To detain- a retine
To keep from- a impiedica, a retine
To lock up a inchide
To take too long- a sta prea mult
Walk-in refrigerator- camera frigorifica
Wrongfully gresit, pe nedrept
UNIT 30
1. Tort law establishes standards of care that society expects from people.
Negligence- another sort of tort is conduct that falls below the standard established by law for
protecting others against unreasonable risks of harm.
2. For a plaintiff to win a negligence action against the defendant, each of the following elements
must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Duty: the defendant or wrongdoer, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, or injured person;
2. Breach of duty: that duty was violated or breached by the defendants conduct;
3. Causation: the defendants conduct caused the plaintiffs harm;
4. Damages: the plaintiff suffered actual damages
3. As in intentional torts, defendants in negligence cases sometimes have legal defenses, different
form those in intentional torts.
4. Duty and breach : you always have a general duty to exercise reasonable care toward other
persons and their property. Negligence law is primarily concerned with compensating victims
who are harmed by wrongdoers action or inaction that violates or breaches this standard of
reasonable care.
5. Causation. Once plaintiff proves that the defendant owes him or her a duty, there must be proof
that this duty was violated, there must be proof that the defendants acts caused the harm to the
plaintiff.
6. When you think about the element of causation, you must consider two separate issues: cause in
fact and legal (or proximate) cause. If the harm would not have occurred without the wrongful
act, the act is the cause in fact.
7. The more difficult part of causation is establishing legal cause. The basic idea behind legal
cause is that there must be a close connection between the wrongful act and the harm caused.
The harm caused must have been a foreseeable result of the act or acts.
8. Damages. A plaintiff who proves duty, breach ad both forms of causation still must prove actual
damages to recover in negligence action. The basic idea behind damages is that the plaintiff
should be restored to his or her preinjury condition, to the extent that this is possible to achieve
with money.
9. The reasonable person standard. When judging whether certain conduct is negligent, the law
has developed an imaginary, idealized creature- the reasonable person of ordinary prudence or
carefulness. This person acts the way a community expects its members to act.
WORDS AND PHRASES
Breach- incalcare
Carefulness- atentie, grija, consideratie
Causation- cauzare, pricinuire
Close connection- stransa legatura
Concerned with- preocupat de
Foreseeable- previzibil
Preinjury condition- starea dinaintea vatamarii
Primarily- primordial, in primul rand
Proximate- proxim
Still- totusi
To exercise care- a avea grija de
To expect from- a se astepta de la
To owe a duty of care- a datora grija
To restore- a restaura
To the extent that- in masura in care
Wrongdoer- raufacator
Wrongful- injust, culpabil
UNIT 31
DEFENSES TO NEGLIGENCE SUITS
1. People can recover from injuries when they are able to prove each of the elements of negligence
by a preponderance of the evidence. However, even when all the elements can be proven, the
defendant may be able to raise a valid legal defense.
2. One traditional legal defense is contributory negligence. This means you cannot recover from the
defendant if your own negligence contributed in any way to the harm suffered.
3. Most states now use a defense called comparative negligence. This means dividing the loss
according to the degree to which each person is at fault.
4. Another legal defense in negligence cases is assumption of the risk. This defense is used when
you voluntarily encounter a known danger and decide to accept the risk of that danger.
5. This defense also occurs when a warning is posted that gives notice of a certain danger.
6. A final series of defenses deals with defendants who are immune from some kinds of tort suits,
in some situations, society has decided that for public policy reasons certain people should not be
sued, even though their conduct may have been improper. These immunities involve suits within
families and against governments and certain government officials.
7. Today the federal government through the Federal Tort Claims Act, has agreed to be held liable
in civil actions for negligent acts or omissions by government employees.
8. The president, federal judges and members of Congress are totally immune from tort liability for
acts carried out within the scope of their duties. Other high-ranking officials, including members
of the Cabinet and presidential aides, have qualified immunity meaning that they can be sued
only if knew or should have known that their acts were violating the legal rights of another
person.
WORDS AND PHRASES
Aide consiler, asistent
Assumption asumare, acceptare, supozitie
At fault- vinovat, in culpa
Comparative negligence culpabiliatea comparata(intre cea a victimei si a agentului, pentru
stabilirea daunelor)
Contributory negligence culpabiliiatea victimei
High-ranking- de rang inalt
Improper nepotrivit, necorespunzator
Policy-politica
Qualified immunity imunitate calificata, imunitate cu rezerve
Scope- limite, sfera
Suit =lawsuit
Through- prin intermediul
To carry out- a executa, a indeplini
To give notice of- a instiinta
To post a afisa, a anunta
To raise a defense(AE)defence(BE) a lansa (o pledoarie de aparare)
QUESTIONS
1. What can people do when they are able to prove each of the elements of negligence ?
2. What is the one traditional legal defense ?
3. When is the defense used ?
4. What does a final series of defenses deal with ?
5. What authorities are totally immune from tort liability ?
6. Whom do high officials include ?
7. when can members of the Cabinet and presidential aides be sued ?
UNIT 32
INTERROGATIONS AND CONFESSIONS
1.After an arrest is made, it is standard police practice to question or interrogate the accused.
Interrogations often result in confessions or admissions which are later used as evidence at trial.
2. Balanced against the polices need to question suspects are the constitutional rights of people
accused of crime. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution provides citizens with a privilege
against self-incrimination. This means that a suspect has a right to remain silent and cannot be
forced to testify against him or herself. Under the Sixth Amendment, a person accused of crime has
the right to the assistance of an attorney.
3. In 1966, in the case of Miranda vs. Arizona, Ernesto Miranda, found guilty of kidnapping and
raping, said he would not have confessed if he had been advised of his right to remain silent and of
his right to an attorney.
4. As a result of this case, The Supreme Court ruled that police would be required to inform people
accused of a crime of the following Miranda rights before questioning begins.
5. Miranda warnings
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court.
You have the right to a lawyer and to have one present while you are being present
If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning begins
Failure to give Miranda warnings, does not affect the validity of an arrest. The police have to
give Miranda warnings only if they want to use statements form the accused at the trial.
The Miranda case illustrates the delicate balance between the protection guaranteed to the
accused and the protection provided to society from crime.
This balance is constantly changing. In one case, the Court ruled that if a suspect confesses
before police warn the suspect of his or her rights, the confession can be used if the suspect
later repeats it after a warning. In another case, the Court created a public safety exception
to the Miranda rule. It did this by holding that police may ask questions related to public
safety before advising suspects of their rights.
WORDS AND PHRASES
Admission admitere, recunoastere
Balance echilibru
To appoint a numi (intr-un post)
To confess a marturisi
To illustrate a ilustra
To provide with a asigura, a furniza
To require a pretinde
To result in a rezulta in, a se solda cu
To rule a decide, a dispune
To testify a depune o marturie, a face o declaratie
Under sub, in conditiile, conform
Versus- contra, vizavi de
QUESTIONS
1. After an arrest is made what is standard police practice ?
2. What do interrogations often result in ?
3. What are confessions or admissions later used at ?
4. What is balanced against the polices need to question suspects ?
5. Can a suspect be forced to testify against him or herself?
6. Under what amendment does a person accused of a crime have the right to the assistance of
an attorney?
7. What were the rights Miranda had not been advised of ?
UNIT 33
THE TRIAL
1. 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, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution
2. Taken together, these rights make up the overall right to a fair trial.
3. Right to Trial by Jury. In fact, most criminal cases are resolved by guilty pleas before ever
reaching trial. Defendants can waive (give up) their right to a jury trial, in some states, waivers ay
occur in the majority of cases.
4. Jury panels are selected from voter registration or lists and are supposed to be generally
representative of the community.
5. Right to a Speedy and Public Trial. The Constitution does not define speedy and the federal
government and some states have set specific time limits within which a case must be brought to
trial, otherwise the case may be dismissed. Before dismissing a case, courts will consider the cause
and reasons for the delay and whether the defendant was free or in jail during the pretrial period.
6. However, defendants often waive the speedy trial requirement.
7. Right to Confront Witnesses. It means the right to confront (face-to-face) the witnesses against
the defendant and to ask them questions by way of cross examination. If the defendant becomes
disorderly or disruptive, judges have the power to remove the defendant from the courtroom, to
cite him or her for contempt of court, or in extreme circumstances, to have the defendant bound
and gagged.
8. Freedom from Self-Incrimination. This right comes from the fifth-amendment and can be
exercised in all criminal cases. In addition, the prosecutor is forbidden to make any statement
drawing the jurys attention to the defendants failure to testify.
9. Although a defendant has a right not to testify, this right can be waived. Moreover, a defendant
who takes the witness stand in his or her own criminal trial must answer all questions.
10. Related to the right against self-incrimination is the concept of immunity, which forces a witness
to answer all questions, and in exchange, the witness is granted freedom from prosecution.
11. Right to an Attorney means that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to
..have the assistance of Counsel for his defense. Criminal defendants who can afford an attorney
are appointed one by the government free of charge. These attorneys may be either public
defenders or private attorneys.
WORDS AND PHRASES
Are supposed to be se presupune ca sunt
By way of- pe calea
Compulsory obligatoriu
Contempt of court insultare a instantei
Counsel- avocat, sfat
Courtroom- sala de tribunal
Defender aparator
Delay intarziere
Disruptive intarziere, amanare
Free of charge- gratuit
In exchange- in schimb
Jury panel- lista de jurati
Otherwise altminteri
Overall- global
Plea- pledoarie
Pretrial- dinaintea judecatii
Registration- inregistrare
Related to- legat de, corelat cu
Representative of- reprezentativ pentru
Requirement cerinta
Shall do- va face numaidecat
Ascertain- a stabili
Draw attention- a atrage atentia