Text b. Courtroom personnel

In addition to the lawyers and the judge, three other people will play an important role in the trial. The COURT REPORTER, who sits close to the witnesses and the judge, puts down every word that is spoken during the trial and also may record the proceedings on tape. The CLERK, who sits right below the judge, keeps track of all documents and exhibits and notes down important events in the trial. The BAILIFF helps to keep the trial running smoothly. The jury is in the custody of the bailiff, who sees to the jurors comfort and convenience and helps them if they are having any problems related to jury service.

What happens during the trial

Events in a trial usually happen in a particular order, though the order may be changed by the judge. The usual order of events is set out below.

Step 1: Selection of the Jury.

Step 2: Opening Statements. The lawyers for each side will discuss their views of the case that you are to hear and will also present a general picture of what they intend to prove about the case. What the lawyers say in their opening statements is not evidence and, therefore, does not help prove their cases.

Step 3: Presentation of Evidence. All parties are entitled to present evidence. The testimony of witnesses who testify at trial is evidence. Evidence may also take the form of physical exhibits, such as a gun or a photograph. On occasion, the written testimony of people not able to attend the trial may also be evidence in the cases you will hear.

Many things you will see and hear during the trial are not evidence. For example, what the lawyers say in their opening and closing statements is not evidence.

Many times during the trial the lawyers may make OBJECTIONS to evidence presented by the other side or to questions asked by the other lawyer. Lawyers are allowed to object to these things when they consider them improper under the laws of evidence. It is up to the judge to decide whether each objection was valid or invalid, and whether, therefore, the evidence can be admitted or the question allowed. If the objection was valid, the judge will SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. If the objection was not valid, the judge will OVERRULE THE OBJECTION.

Step 4: The Instructions. Following presentation of all the evidence, the judge instructs the jury on the laws that are to guide the jury in their deliberations on a verdict. A copy of the instructions will be sent to the jury room for the use of jurors during their deliberations. All documents or physical objects that have been received into evidence will also be sent to the jury room.

Step 5: Closing Arguments. The lawyers in the closing arguments summarize the case from their point of view. They may discuss the evidence that has been presented or comment on the credibility of witnesses. The lawyers may also discuss any of the judge’s instructions that they feel are of special importance to their case. These arguments are not evidence.

Step 6: Jury Deliberation. The jury retires to the jury room to conduct the deliberations on the verdict in the case they have just heard. The jury first elects a foreman who will see to it that discussion is conducted in a sensible and orderly fashion, that all issues are fully and fairly discussed, and that every juror is given a fair chance to participate.

When a verdict has been reached, the foreman signs it and informs the bailiff. The jury returns to the courtroom, where the foreman presents the verdict. The judge then discharges the jury from the case.

TASK 1. Answer the following questions.

1. What is the difference between the court reporter and the clerk?

2. What are the bailiff’s duties?

3. What are the steps of a trial?

4. Define the word evidence. What can not be considered evidence?

5. What can you tell about objections?

6. What can you tell about instructions?

7. Who presents closing arguments?

8. What have you learned about jury deliberations?

TASK 2. Translate the following words and word combinations into English.

Вердикт (присяжних); сторона-заявник; судовий процес є змаганням; переконливіші докази; консультація з питань права; кінцеві аргументи адвокатів; звільнити від справи; добір присяжних; доводити вину; речовий доказ.

TASK 3. Translate the following sentences into English.

1. В усіх випадках позивач – сторона, яка розпочинає цивільну справу (кримінальну справу, переслідування), мусить доводити зміст своїх вимог.

2. Можливість апеляційного оскарження обмежена часовими рамками відповідно до закону.

3. Україна перебуває нині на перехідному етапі від розгляду справ суддею до розгляду судом присяжних.

4. Докази майже завжди наводяться свідками.

5. Повістка про явку до суду – це судовий наказ свідку з’явитися до суду та дати свідчення.

6. Судовий процес – це не розвага, гумор тут недоречний.

7. Завдання адвоката – подати судді та присяжним ті факти, які висвітлюють дії клієнта найсприятливішим чином, але користуючись при цьому законними юридичними засобами.

TASK 4. Agree or disagree with the following statements.

1. To begin lawsuit, the plaintiff files a complaint – a document stating the nature of his claim and the relief he is seeking – with the clerk of the court.

2. Through discovery each party can obtain the information that was previously illegally hidden by another party to the litigation.

3. After all the witnesses have testified, each lawyer presents a closing statement.

4. The party who initiates the prosecution in a civil case (the lawsuit in a criminal case) is the plaintiff.

5. The trial process is much formalized.

TASK 5. Match the English phrases with their Ukrainian equivalents.

All rise!	Протест підтримано!
I object Your Honour!	Всім встати!
Sustained!	Займіть місце свідка!
Overruled!	Протестую, пане суддя!
Take the witness stand!	Протест відхилено!
The Judge is in!	Свідок, відповідайте на запитання!
Witness, answer the question!	Суд іде!

TASK 6. Read the texts and discuss each case applying the questions below.

1. Was justice done?

2. If you had been the judge, would you have given a different sentence?

3. Would you have chosen a lighter sentence, or a more severe one?

4. How would you have felt if you had been the victim of the crime?

5. How would you have felt if you had been the defendant?

6. If you had been the judge, what other facts and circumstances would you have wanted to know?