Vocabulary notes

plight	затруднительное положение
swift	быстрый,скорый
dignified	величественный, достойный
hapless	несчастный, незадачливый
to verify	удостоверять(ся), проверять
curt	сжатый, отрывисто-грубый
indictment inadvertently	обвинительный акт ненамеренно

Task 3. Read the text again and make sure you know all underlined parts of the text. Give their Russian equivalents

Task 4. Answer the following questions:

1. What problem does this passage mainly discuss?

2. Why may the victim experience a big shock?

3. What are courts supposed to be?

4. Why is the defendant soon out of jail?

5. What is the victim supposed to do in court?

6. Why is the case put off many times? Who is responsible for delays?

Task 5. Read the statements. Agree or disagree with them. Agreement or disagreement should be followed by some comment

1. Justice for a victim is truly swift and fair.

2. The court is crowded, quiet, clean and orderly.

3. The judge is of necessity brief in the disposition of business.

4. If the case proceeds it is bound over to a grand jury and bond is set for the victim.

5. The victim makes the necessary ar­rangements to go to court on the trial date.

6. A defendant most of all desires a speedy trial.

Task 6. Explain in English what the words and word combinations mean. Use them in your own sentences

Or­derly, dignified, deliberate, im­partial, first-time victim, an intruder, preliminary hearing, to be in charge, a grand jury, bond, to recount, to scan, to argue a case

.

Task 7. Practice the speech patterns given below. Make up two sentences of your own on each pattern

1. What about the citizen who has to deal only occasionally with the system? What about, for instance, the victim of a crime?

2. If the hapless first-time victim of a burglary shows up at magistrate court for a preliminary hearing, he may experience a big shock. After some time has passed, the victim may receive a notice to ap­pear before the grand jury.

3. On the morning of the trial he is in the courtroom scanning the crowd for the defendant.There he is — neat and clean as a Bible salesman, looking like anything but a burglar.

4. You will be noti­fied when to come back. But let’s leave it to the courts to guess what all this means and what to do when one noble goal, written into law, conflicts with another. The witness was not sure whether to answer the prosecutor’s question or not.

5. The judge is of necessity brief, if not curt, in the disposition of business. Many, if not most, sexual assaults and rapes go unreported.

Task 8. Make the summary of the text. Use the key words and word combinations

Text 3

Task 1. Answer the questions:

1. Why do people have to appear in court many times?

2. Why does a defendant try to postpone the hearing of his case?

3. How long does it take to select a jury for case?

Task 2. Read the text to get the main idea paying special attention to the underlined parts of the text (key words and word combinations)

Massive Delays. It is easy to understand how frustrating successive court appearances can be. Because less than 15 percent of all criminal indictments are disposed of by jury trial, there are many occasions where a victim will call the prose­cutor's office to ask when he is supposed to come back to court. "The case has already been con­cluded," he'll be told. "The defend­ant pleaded guilty." "What did he get?" "Probation."

Or, under other circumstances, the case may proceed to trial on a not-guilty plea. I say "proceed to trial," realizing that a shrewd de­fendant can infuse massive delay into the disposition of his case. For example, at the first arraignment calendar (where theoretically a trial date is set), the defendant states that he is having trouble getting enough money to hire a lawyer and needs two more weeks. After the two weeks the defendant says that he needs still more time.

On the next appearance the de­fendant arrives with a lawyer and pleads not guilty. A trial date is set. On trial day the defendant appears and says that he has discharged his lawyer because of an irresolvable conflict in personality, and needs more time to hire another lawyer.

"No," says the judge. "The court will appoint counsel to represent you." In doing so, however, the judge must give the new attorney some time to prepare for the case. Another postponement. Mean­while, our hapless victim has shown up dutifully at each of these court appearances.

Victim on Trial. What if the case actually does go to trial? Well, the victim is in for more waiting. Ex­cluded from the courtroom during jury selection (he will likely be banished during all the evidentiary proceedings except his own testi­mony), he sits and wonders what can be taking so long?

What is taking so long is jury selection. Depending upon the law­yers involved, the process can take a day or longer. In my state of Geor­gia, for example, to try a person for a felony requires a pool of 42 quali­fied jurors. From this number, the state may strike 10 and the defend­ant 20 to arrive at a jury of 12. The first thing wrong with that is the double number of strikes. If the purpose of this process is to ensure fair and impartial jury selection, it can in no way be considered fair to give one side twice as many strikes as the other, be it state or defendant.

Another problem is that in many courts lawyers are afforded very broad latitude in asking questions, often about hypothetical situations, which can be extended to ludicrous lengths. After all, no lawyer really wants a fair and impartial juror. He wants one strongly biased in his favor. Nor would a juror with ex­tensive knowledge of any field in­volved in the case be acceptable. Jurors are chosen for their igno­rance of a subject matter and for their malleability. Further, most lawyers prefer to have jurors who have never served before, who are ignorant of legal procedures.

The process seems interminable, but finally a jury is selected and our victim's name is called. He takes the stand. "State your name and address, please” and he tells exactly what happened. Because the story is brief, direct examina­tion consumes but a few minutes.

"Cross-examine," the judge says.

"Now, sir," the lawyer for the well-scrubbed intruder asks, "isn't it true that you approached this young man over here on the street and offered to pay him to engage in homosexual relations with you; that you invited him into your house and he changed his mind and then you called the police?"

Many honest and truthful vic­tims of crimes have faced the same kind of outrageous calumny at the hands of a cross-examiner. The hon­est witness is visibly upset — where­upon the defense lawyer seizes upon the discomfiture as proof positive that his charge of homosexuality is, in fact, the heart of the matter.

I saw that type of questioning happen in the case of a rape victim. The defense was that she had solic­ited the defendant on the street. Somehow the victim's cuts and bruises were not ignored, and for­tunately justice was done. Yet that young woman was twice raped — once when the crime was committed and once in the courtroom.