In the box.

A. person who brings a case against another in a court; B. preliminary; C. ask questions to somone in an official context; D. questioning of a witness by the party that has called that witness to give evidence; E. formulate conditions for; F. acceptability; G. witness’s evidence;

8. freedom of choice; I. characterized by unnecessary repetition; J. irritating;

K. question that prompts the answer wanted; L. tell a person what to say next; M. recognize; N. make a statement that is more general than is justified; O. person who testifies because of his special knowledge relevant to the case; P. support; Q. reject; R. questioning of a witness by the opposing party; S. damage; T. accuse; U. trustworthiness; V. such that can be trusted;

W. interest; X. result; Y. crime, typically involving violence; Z. deceitfulness.

The presentation of evidence begins when the attorney for the plaintiff begins calling witnesses. The plaintiffs attorney does the initial questioning of the witness, which is called direct examination. The purpose of direct examination is to get the witness to testify about facts that support the plaintiffs case. There are rules of evidence, which govern the admissibility of testimony. The judge has some control over an attorney’s examination of witnesses and can dictate the form of the questions presented to the witness. The judge has discretion to stop repetitive or annoying questioning. Neither attorney may ask his/her own witness a leading question which implies, suggests or prompts the witness to give a particular answer. A witness can be asked to identify demonstrative evidence such as documents and photographs. Generally, a witness cannot give an opinion or draw a conclusion from the evidence unless he/she has been qualified as an expert witness. The attorney for the defendant can make objections to the witness's testimony. The judge either sustains the objection or overrules it and allows the witness to answer the question. During cross-examination, the attorney of the opposing party tries to undermine or impeach the witness's credibility. The attorney attempts to show that the witness is not reliable and might also try to show that the witness is biased or prejudiced toward a party in

the case. Another way to undermine the witness’s credibility is to show that the witness has a stake in the outcome of the case, which might influence his/her testimony. The attorney can also question the witness about any felony criminal convictions or about any crimes involving dishonesty. Just as on direct examination, the opposing party’s attorney can raise objections to the questions posed to the witness. The judge then rules on the objection.

2. Substitute the italicized words and word combinations in the following sentences with the words you have found in activity 1.

The rules of evidence formulate conditions for the acceptability of witness’s evidence in all kinds of questioning - the preliminary one, questioning of a witness by the party that has called that witness to give evidence or questioning of a witness by the opposing party. The judge has the freedom of choice to stop attorney’s irritating questions or those characterized by unnecessary repetition. Attorneys are not allowed to ask their own witnesses questions that prompt the answer wanted by them, as well as to tell a witness what to say next. Witnesses are not expected to make statements that are more general than is justified except in a situation where they testify because of their special knowledge relevant to the case. In other cases witnesses can be asked to recognize objects, photographs, or just answer some questions. Attorneys can object to the opposing party’s witness’s testimony, and the judge may support or reject such objections, depending on the situation. When asking questions in an official context, the attorneys attempt to damage the evidence of the opposing party’s witnesses and to accuse them of deceitfulness, thus trying to convince the jury of their doubtful trustworthiness. To demonstrate that the witness can not be trusted, attorneys may try to prove that a witness has an interest in the result of the case, or was involved in criminal convictions related to violent crimes or deceitfulness.

3. Listen to the text on the direct and cross-examination of witnesses in US courts and fill in

the gaps. You will hear the text twice.

In a (1) case, the plaintiff is first to present and attempt to prove its case to the jury. In

presenting the case, the (2)’s lawyer will normally call witnesses to testify and produce

documents or other exhibits. When a (3) is called, he or she will undergo direct

2. by the plaintiffs attorney. Then the defendant’s attorney will have the opportunity to ask

questions or (5) -examine the witness. Generally speaking, witnesses may testify only

about matters they have actually observed; they may not (6) their opinion. However, an

important exception to this general rule is that expert (7) are specifically called upon to

give their (8) in matters within their areas of expertise. To qualify as an (9)

witness, a person must possess substantial knowledge about a particular field. Furthermore, this

knowledge must normally be established in open (10). Both sides often present experts

whose opinions are contradictory. If this happens, the (11) must ultimately decide which

opinion is the correct one. When the plaintiffs side has (12) all its evidence, the attorney

rests the case. During the (13), witnesses called by either side are questioned by the

lawyer who calls them in direct (14) and may be questioned by the lawyer on the other

side in (15) -examination. The judge may be asked to decide questions of law during the

HE LETTER . 1

OF THE LAW 1

PREFACE 8

MODULE 1 14

THE SHIP OF STATE NEVER SLOWS DOWN IN A FOG 14

LESSON 1. GOVERNMENT IS KNOWN BY THE COUNTRY IT KEEPS 14

LESSON 2 A SUCCESSFUL EXECUTIVE DELEGATES ALL RESPONSIBILITY 67

MODULE 2 186

THE RULE OF LAW 186

LESSON 1. THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND 186

module з і 361

THE TIMES OF TRIAL 361

LESSON 2. EVIDENCE IS NOT ALWAYS PROOF 382

LESSON 3. EXPERT’S REPUTATION IS RASED ON WNAT OTHERS DO NOT KNOW 403

LESSON 4. OUR DECISION IS ‘MAYBE’ - AND THAT’S FINAL 426

TIME IS MONEY, BUT NOT IN JAIL 465

LESSON 1. OFFENSIVE MATERIALS 465

weight of the evidence.

4. Explain the meaning of the following word-combinations related to the direct and cross- examination of witnesses in trial procedure from the text.

Civil case; present the case to the jury; closing arguments; plaintiffs lawyer; testify upon a trial; produce documents and other exhibits; direct examination; defendant’s attorney; cross-examine the witness; testify; observe matters; general rule; expert witness; be called upon to give somebody’s opinion; areas of expertise; possess substantial knowledge; open court; contradictory opinions; ultimately; rest the case; trial; be questioned; presentation of plaintiffs case; decide questions of law during the trial; objections to evidence; represent client in a court; jury; legal arguments; jury’s verdict; proper evidence; rules of evidence; sustain objection; overrule objection; comment on the weight of evidence; present evidence; qualify as an expert witness; juror; ruling by the judge; side to the case; make objections against a lawyer or lawyer’s client; both sides often present experts; presentation of the defendant’ case.

5. Work in pairs. Fill in the table below on the basis of exercises 1 and 3. Then use the table to tell your partner everything you know about the direct and cross-examination.

t ^ • EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES - .g. s .
What is the content and purpose of the‘direct examination’?
What are the rules of evidence for?
How can the judge control attorney’s examination of witnesses?
What are the things the attorney may not ask?
What are the things the attorney may ask?
What are the things a witness may not do?
I What can the judge do with attorney’s objections?
What is the content and purpose of the ‘cross-examination’?
What are the ways to undermine the witness’s credibility during the cross-examination?
Are objections allowed during the cross- examination?
'й • \ . DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATIONS .
Who is the first to present the case to the jury?
Things the witnesses may and may not do
What is the exception to the general rule?
Who can act as an expert witness?

What happens if experts’ opinions are contradictory?
What happens when the plaintiffs side has presented all its evidence?
What questions must be discussed without a jury? Why?
What are the judge’s functions during the direct and cross-examination?

6. 

   Work in pairs. Choose the correct verb form in the sentences below.

2. As a rule, the defendant’s case is presented/presents in the same way as the plaintiffs case.

1. Two hours later the witness was turned/was being turned over to the opposing party for cross-examination.

2. In 5 minutes the plaintiffs witness will call/will be called to testify.

3. While the main witness to the case testified/was testifying our chain of proves was collapsing/was being collapsed by his words.

4. The scope of the cross-examination is usually limited/usually limited to the matters brought out in his direct examination.

5. Only after all the details of the case have been presented/had been presented to the jury by the plaintiffs attorney, the first witness was called/called.

6. When all the evidence has been presented/have been presented by the plaintiff s side, the attorney rests the case.

7. By 9 p.m. the jury’s verdict will have finally been announced/will finally be announced.

8. The cross-examining attorney permitted/is typically not permitted to ask questions which do not pertain to the facts revealed in the direct examination.

9. Yesterday our witness had been asked/ was asked to identify some demonstrative evidence.

1. suppose you know that all the objections during the trial will rule/will be ruled on by the judge.

11. When she regained consciousness the main witness of the opposing party was being cross-examined/ was cross-examining.

12. I’m absolutely sure that defendant’s objections will be sustained/ will have been sustained by the judge by the end of the trial.

13. The defendant’s witness is examining/ is being examined now by the plaintiff s attorney.

14. An important witness seldom leaves the stand until several further stages of successive examination had been conducted/ have been conducted by the attorney.

15. Some new and important facts have been elicited/ had been elicited during cross- examination, so we’ll change our strategy.

16. By 6 p.m. the last witness will be called/ will have already been called for recross­examination by our opponent.

17. The whole day yesterday the witnesses to the case were being examined/ were examined by the attorney.

18. Believe me, by the time your attorney finds out new evidence, the trial will have been finished/will be finished.

19. The credibility of the witness’s testimony is determining/is being determined now by the jurors.

7. Write a survey report on the main principles of the direct and cross-examination during the trial in the US law system. Use the texts in this part of the lesson or any other materials you may come across. See also: Survey Report in the Recommendations on Creative Writing Work.

8. Translate into English

У процесі слухання цивільної справи сторона позивача першою подає справу на розгляд суду присяжних та останньою надає заключні аргументи. Якщо не існує жодної переконливої причини для відхилення від загального правила, після показань свідка та встановлення його компетентності стороні у справі надається можливість допитати свідків. Подання доказів для розгляду судом починається з того, що адвокат позивача викликає власних свідків. Кожен свідок присягається говорити лише правду й свідчити лише з місця свідка в суді. Адвокат позивача проводить первісне опитування свідка у справі, що називається «первісний допит». Мета первісного допиту полягає у спробі примусити особу свідчити стосовно фактів, які обґрунтовують та підкріплюють сторону позивача. Існують так звані «правила подання свідчень», які регулюють ступінь правомочності свідчень та доказів для того, щоб вони були прийнятими в суді.

Суддя безпосередньо має право певного контролю за допитом свідка з боку адвоката сторони й може формулювати запитання, адресовані свідку. Суддя також має право утримувати адвоката від формулювання та постановки тих запитань свідку, що повторюються або дратують його. Адвокат не має права ставити власному свідку навідні питання, що натякають або спонукають свідка давати певну відповідь.

Свідку може бути запропоновано ідентифікувати окремі предметні докази, такі як документи або фотографії. Як правило, свідок не може висловлювати власну думку або робити висновки із своїх свідчень, за винятком випадків, коли він свідчить як експерт. Під час свідчень адвокат відповідача може висувати заперечення щодо показань свідка. У такому випадку суддя підтримує заперечення або ж відхиляє його й дозволяє свідку відповідати на запитання.

Після того як адвокат позивача закінчує опитування свідка, адвокат відповідача отримує право перехресного допиту свідка протилежної сторони. Перехресний допит є фундаментальним правом американської системи правосуддя. Зміст запитань перехресного допиту зазвичай обмежений рамками інформації, отриманої під час попереднього допиту, або питаннями, безпосередньо пов’язаними з нею. Адвокату сторони дозволено ставити навідні питання свідку під час перехресного допиту, оскільки адвокат відповідача намагається зруйнувати або поставити під сумнів вірогідність показань свідка чи показати прилюдно, що свідок є упередженим проти його сторони у справі. Іншим методом підірвати довіру показань свідка є намагання адвоката довести, що свідок має власний інтерес у тому, як завершиться справа, що може впливати на його свідчення. Як і під час первісного допиту, адвокат протилежної сторони може висувати заперечення до запитань, поставлених свідку. У такому випадку суддя регулює висунення заперечень.

Після перехресного допиту свідка адвокат позивача отримує можливість поставити свідку декілька додаткових запитань. Після цього адвокат протилежної сторони може провести повторний перехресний допит свідка.

Як тільки адвокат позивача закінчив опитування всіх свідків від сторони позивача, адвокат відповідача починає викликати своїх свідків у справі. Він проводить попередній допит свідків таким же чином, як це робив і адвокат позивача, після чого вони переходять до перехресного допиту.