Unit 15.

Ex. 194. Translate the article.

Cross-examination

In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness called by one's opponent. It is preceded by direct examination and may be followed by a redirect.

In the United States, the cross-examining attorney is typically not permitted to ask questions which do not pertain to the facts revealed in direct examination. This is called going beyond the scope of the direct examination. Unlike in direct examinations, however, leading questions are typically permitted in a cross-examination, since the witness is presumed to be sympathetic to the opposing side.

Before giving testimony oaths are made by a witness to a court of law. Typically, they include a promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, "so help me God." Unless a witness is testifying as an expert witness, testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is generally limited to those opinions or inferences that are rationally based on the perceptions of the witness and are helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony.

Breaking an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is perjury. In legal cases in the United States, witnesses are given an oath under the penalty of perjury for their tesimony at trial or in a deposition.

When a witness is asked a question, the opposing attorney can raise an objection, which is a legal move to disallow an improper question, preferably before the witness answers, and mentioning one of the standard reasons, including:

• argumentative

• asked and answered

• calls for speculation

• calls for a conclusion

• compound question

• hearsay

• inflammatory

• irrelevant, immaterial, incompetent

• lack of foundation

• leading

• narrative

There may also be an objection to the answer, including:

• non-responsive

Ex. 195. Translate the expressions.

- interrogation

- pertain

- reveal

- scope

- permit

- inference

- perception

- perjury

- deposition

- improper

- objection

- to make a deposition

Ex. 196. Make up sentences.

Before After

cross-examining a witness called by one's opponent giving testimony being asked leading questions giving a promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, breaking an oath to tell the truth answering the question mentioning one of the standard reasons to disallow an improper question listening to the witness' testimony

direct examination was made. he was accused of perjury. oaths are made by a witness to a court of law. she put her right hand on the Bible. the opposing attorney sat down being very pleased. the trial decided to call for an expert witness. the witness was stopped by the opposing attorney who raised an objection. the woman didn’t realized that she was to the opposing side.

Ex. 197. Fill in the gaps.

1. Cross-examination is the interrogation of a …………….. called by one's opponent. 2. Cross-examination can be preceded by ………………………… 3. The cross-examining attorney can’t ask questions which refer to the ………….. revealed in direct examination. 4. It is permitted to ask …………………………. in a cross-examination. 5. Witness must make an ……………….. before giving testimony. 6. If you are not an expert witness you’ll …………………………….in the form of opinion. 7. These opinions or inferences that are rationally based on the ………………….. of the witness. 8………………….. is breaking an oath to tell the truth in court. 9. When a witness is asked a question, the opposing attorney can raise an ………………….. 10. The opposing attorney disallowed an improper question mentioning hearsay.

direct examination, facts, give testimony, improper question, oath, leading questions, objection, perceptions, perjury, witness

Ex. 198. Combine the letters into the words covering the text.

T	R	U	T	N	I	E	R	I	1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
R	I	P	E	R	T	A	I	N
U	L	I	S	S	A	T	I	F
T	E	M	T	O	A	T	H	E
H	O	P	I	N	I	O	N	R
P	E	R	M	I	T	R	E	E
E	A	O	O	R	E	N	A	N
Y	G	P	N	P	E	E	J	C
A	D	E	Y	A	R	Y	F	E
P	E	R	J	U	R	Y	S	I

Ex. 199. Use the proper prepositions.

Cross-examination is the interrogation ……… a witness called …….. one's opponent. It is preceded ……… direct examination and may be followed by a redirect.

The cross-examining attorney is not permitted to ask questions which do not pertain to the facts revealed ……… direct examination. Leading questions are typically permitted ……… a cross-examination, since the witness is presumed to be sympathetic ……… the opposing side.

……… giving testimony oaths are made by a witness to a court of law.

……… legal cases ……… the United States, witnesses are given an oath ……… the penalty of perjury ……… their tesimony at trial or in a deposition.

When a witness is asked a question, the opposing attorney can raise an objection, which is a legal move to disallow an improper question, preferably ……… the witness answers.

Ex. 200. Find equivalents to the following.

narrative evidence leading question incompetent witness inflammatory irrelevant hearsay evidence conclusion argumentative speculation

доказательства, основанные на слухах; показания с чужих слов косвенный, выводимый путём заключения наводящий вопрос не относящийся к делу неправомочный свидетель предположение разжигающий, подстрекательский рассказ свидетеля умозаключение, вывод

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

Ex. 201. Translate the text.

Важнейшим способом доказательства достоверности свидетельских показаний в американском уголовном процессе является обеспечение доверия суда присяжных к самому свидетелю. Поэтому при прямом допросе свидетеля в суде сторона, вызвавшая свидетеля, старается подтвердить достоверность его показаний в глазах присяжных заседателей, а противная сторона - принять все меры для дискредитации этого свидетеля или его показаний.

Перекрестный допрос считается основным способом проверки показаний свидетеля. В действительности же, в соответствии с состязательной моделью правосудия, перекрестный допрос служит основным способом дискредитации свидетеля перед присяжными заседателями, что может подорвать доказываемую позицию противоположной стороны.

Существует два вида дискредитации: дискредитация самого свидетеля (т.е. доказывание его некомпетентности) или его показаний (т.е. доказывание недостоверности этих показаний). Цель любой дискредитации - устранить нежелательные для стороны доказательства путем внушения присяжным представления об их ложности.

Ex. 202. Read.

Q: "Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?" A: "No." Q: "Did you check for blood pressure?" A: "No." Q: "Did you check for breathing?" A: "No." Q: "So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?" A: "No." Q: "How can you be so sure, Doctor?" A: "Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar." Q: "But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?" A: "It is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere."

Just for fun!

☺

Ex. 203. Translate the sentences.

1. He made a deposition that he had witnessed the accident. 2. It's irrelevant to cite such outdated evidence. 3. It took her a mere 20 minutes to dispose of her opponent. 4. He broke down under cross examination (while he was being cross examined) and took part in the assault. 5. We are looking for somebody with direct experience of this type of work. 6. It was a direct challenge to the president’s authority. 7. There are fines for exceeding permitted levels of noise pollution. 8. Living conditions are vastly different from those pertaining in their country of origin. 9. Details of the murder were revealed by the local paper. 10. This subject lies beyond the scope of our investigation. 11. He confessed after four days under interrogation. 12. Twelve passengers are missing, presumed dead. 13. The government failed to keep its promise of lower taxes. 14. I don’t think you are telling me the whole truth about what happened. 15. We were invited to give our opinions about how the work should be done. 16. The clear inference is that the universe is expanding. 17. The amount of money you have to spend will limit your choice. 18. There is no rational explanation for his actions. 19. What are you basing this theory on? 20. Assault carries a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment.

Ex. 204. Look through and translate the article. Compare the information about cross-examination with the same procedure in our country.

По окончании прямого допроса обычно проводится перекрестный допрос свидетеля, т.е. допрос, проводимый противной стороной.

Перекрестный допрос является средством проверки доказательств в американском уголовном процессе. Предполагается, что с его помощью суд может установить, является ли показание добросовестным и что в этом добросовестном показании свидетеля является истиной. Он дает возможность обнаружить в показаниях ошибочную информацию и разоблачить ложные показания, даваемые в ходе процесса свидетелем противной стороны. Сторона, ведущая перекрестный допрос, имеет право задавать свидетелю наводящие вопросы, что при прямом допросе не разрешается. Это право основано на порожденном судебной практикой предположении, что лицо, дающее показания, предрасположено в пользу той стороны, которая вызвала его в качестве свидетеля. Предполагается также, что свидетель в своих показаниях будет говорить то, что ему подсказано вызвавшей его стороной, или скрывать какие-либо обстоятельства, что можно выявить с помощью наводящих вопросов.

При допросе важных для рассматриваемого дела свидетелей сторонам предоставляется возможность уточнить интересующие их обстоятельства с помощью повторного прямого и повторного перекрестного допросов.

Ex. 205. Think about words from the text which can make such a ladder.

Ex. 206. Link the definitions.

connive deposition disallow hearsay improper inference inflammatory rational irrelevant leading question objection penalty permit pertain presume reveal speculation

a formal statement, taken from somebody and used in court a punishment for breaking a law, rule or contract a question that you ask in a particular way in order to get the answer you want a reason why you do not like or are opposed to something based on reason rather than emotions intended to cause very strong feelings of anger not important to or connected with a situation not suited or appropriate to the situation officially to refuse to accept something because it is not valid something that you can find out indirectly from what you already know the act of forming opinions about what has happened or what might happen without knowing all the facts things that you have heard from another person but do not (definitely) know to be true to allow somebody to do something or to allow something to happen to exist or to apply in a particular situation or at a particular time to make something known to somebody,  syn. to disclose to seem to allow something wrong to happen to suppose that something is true, although you do not have actual proof

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17

Ex. 207. Translate the sentences.

1. We were not permitted any contact with each other. 2. She showed great perception in her assessment of the family situation. 3. We’re going to base ourselves in Tokyo and make trips from there. 4. Do I have your promise that you won’t tell anyone about this? 5. The report reveals (that) the company made a loss of £20 million last year. 6. I’ve limited myself to 1 000 calories a day to try and lose weight. 7. We’re looking for a new house, preferably one near the school. 8. The second goal was disallowed. 9. It would be improper to comment at this stage. 10. He might agree. But then he might have a completely different opinion. 11. The penalty for travelling without a ticket is £200. 12. She stubbornly refuses to admit the truth. 13. The government was accused of having connived with the security forces to permit murder. 14. The plans for the new development have raised angry protests from local residents. 15. It wasn’t an easy audience but he raised a laugh with his joke. 16. The law concerning hearsay in civil proceedings was reformed substantially by the Civil Evidence Act 1995 which is "In civil proceedings evidence shall not be excluded on the ground that it is hearsay".

Ex. 208. Fill in the gaps with the English equivalents of the words in brackets.

1. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton was ……………………………… (обвинен в лжесвидетельстве) – and as a result was fined for contempt of court*, and was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998.

2. The cross-examining attorney is typically not permitted to ask questions which do not pertain to the facts revealed in ………………………….. (прямом допросе).

3. Witness …………………………. (показания) must be relied on as being truthful.

4. Federal tax law provides criminal……………………(наказание) of up to three years in prison for violation of the tax return perjury statute.

5. All search warrants must be supported by evidence given under (клятвой) or affirmation.

6. …………………….. (Свидетельские показания) is often presumed to be better than circumstantial evidence.

7. In criminal trials, the defendant may always introduce ………………………. (показания в форме мнения) or reputation evidence to prove that they did not commit the crime of which they are accused.

8. We can’t make a decision based on …………………(слухах) and guesswork.

*contempt of court - оскорбление суда

Ex. 209. Translate the article.

В среду закончился перекрестный допрос обвинителя Джексона. Подросток закончил давать показания на процессе, проходящем в калифорнийском городе Санта Мария, в ходе которого поп-звезду обвиняют в 10 эпизодах, в том числе в сексуальных домогательствах к несовершеннолетним и удержании людей на своем ранчо помимо их воли.

В ходе перекрестного допроса прокурор Том Снеддон спросил Гэвина, почему в 2003 году он сказал Джеффри Альперту, завучу своей школы, будто певец к нему не приставал. Подросток ответил, что действительно как-то сказал преподавателю, что певец к нему не приставал, но сделал это лишь с тем, чтобы положить конец издевательствам со стороны одноклассников.

Защитник певца Томас Месеро построил свою часть перекрестного допроса на информации о том, что Джексон якобы угощал Гэвина алкоголем и удерживал его и его семью на своем ранчо против их воли.

В частности, адвокат заявил, что подростка видели в “Неверлэнде” нетрезвым в тот момент, когда певца там не было. Он поинтересовался также тем, почему ни один из членов семьи Арвизо никогда не жаловался на то, что их держали на ранчо, хотя такая возможность им представлялась, и не единожды.

В завершение своей части допроса адвокат Месеро спросил Гэвина, обсуждал ли он с кем-нибудь деньги, которые он получит, если Джексона признают виновным.

Основной аргумент адвокатов певца состоит в том, что семья Арвизо придумала обвинения в сексуальных домогательствах с тем, чтобы разбогатеть, и в ходе допросов, которому подверг Месеро истца, последний не раз давал противоречивые показания.

Кроме того, адвокат певца заявил, что Гэвин руководствуется желанием отомстить, поскольку он почувствовал себя брошенным певцом, которого считал вторым отцом и которого называл “папа Майкл”.