Английский язык: Учебное пособие

2

UNIT I Courts Text A Courts and the judicial process usually bring to mind a picture of a judge, draped in a black robe, overseeing a trial. When a judge enters a courtroom, everyone rises and stands quietly until he or she sits behind the elevated bench and raps the gavel to start the proceedings. In courts composed of a number of members, it is common for judges to march in together quickly as if choreographed on cue to take their seats in a flourish of flowing robes. Loud talking or even whispering among court spectators is not permitted. At the U. S. Supreme Court severe-looking ushers holding long sticks roam the aisles, and they poke these sticks at individuals who talk too loudly or distract others from focusing on the front of the large courtroom. Called “the Marble Palace,” the U. S. Supreme Court building is very ornate, with high ceilings and decorated walls, polished floors, and long benches that resemble pews in a church. Reverence and respect are expected and enforced. Other courtrooms are less magnificent, but the floor plan, furniture arrangement, and the judge raised above everyone else are similar and clearly show who is in charge and what goes on. The Supreme Court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices, and the responsibility and power of these nine people are extraordinary. Supreme Court decisions can affect the lives of all Americans and can change society significantly. This has happened many times in the course of American history. In the past, Supreme Court rulings have halted actions by American presidents, have declared unconstitutional - and therefore void - laws passed by the Congress, have freed people from prisons and have given new protection to black Americans and other minorities. The Supreme Court is the court of final appeal and it rules in cases in which someone claims that a lower court ruling is unjust or there has been a violation of the United States Constitution. There are many federal courts in the system which has the Supreme Court as its head. In addition each state within the United States has established a system of courts, including a state supreme court, to deal with civil, criminal and appellate proceedings. There are also county and city courts. Even many of the smallest villages, those in which only a few hundred people live, have a local judge, called a “justice of the peace”, who handles minor legal matters. There are other specialized courts to handle matters ranging from tax questions to immigration violations. The potential for conflict within the society is still great, and it is no surprise that there are more than 542,000 lawyers in the United States and hundreds of thousands of court workers. Many cases that come before the Supreme Court involve charges that the police or a judge has violated the rights of a person accused of a crime. It doesn’t matter whether the person actually committed the crime or not; the Supreme Court

3

does not rule on the guilt or innocence of those accused, but only on whether or not laws and legal procedures conform to the Constitution. The Court rules on whether the individual’s right to due process - the proper and correct handling of a legal case - has been violated. If it has, the person must go free, possibly to stand trial again with due process guaranteed. It should also be noted that not all Americans are satisfied with all Supreme Court decisions. Many Americans believe that the court too often “takes the side of the criminals” in declaring proceedings invalid because an accused person’s rights have been violated. Others argue, however, that protecting the innocent is the real intent of these rulings, and that it is better to have a few criminals go free than to have one innocent person be jailed. Not all cases are settled in the Supreme Court Only a small percentage win the attention of the chief justice and the associate justices. Many cases sent to the Supreme Court are studied by the justices and then sent back to the court or the person from which they came. That means that, as a lower court has ruled on the case, the ruling remains in effect. Text B The U.S. Constitution is a very general set of principles that have been interpreted and applied in many different ways throughout history. Some legislative and executive rules are vague because lawmakers cannot agree on more specific regulations. They often compromise by creating very general rules and allow others, often judges and lawyers, to interpret what the rules mean in particular circumstances. Other rules intentionally provide only general principles or guidelines so that they can be applied to many similar, but somewhat different circumstances. Criminal codes are examples of this kind of lawmaking. Criminal acts are defined by legislatures, but the penalties for the same crime may range from fines and probation to many years in prison. Judges are free to hand down sentences that fall within the range specified by the legislature and to make the punishment fit the crime and the criminal. It is possible and perfectly legal, therefore, for judges to sentence defendants convicted of the same crime to vastly different prison terms. A particular decision depends on the personal values and choices of judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers and the compromises that they produce among themselves. Whatever they decide within the broad range of sentences fixed by the legislature will be lawful. Other vague legal principles also give judges lots of room to make decisions they believe are proper or right. For instance, the principle of equity gives judges almost complete freedom to decide what is best. Equity generally means fairness or doing right. The rule comes from old England and the American colonies where separate equity courts once heard certain types of disputes but also had the special power to ignore laws that judges believed were unjust in particular cases. Today, separate equity courts are rare, but the equity idea still permits judges to acknowledge formal law, but to avoid it selectively in the name of fairness.

4

Comprehension Scan the texts for answers to the following questions. 1. What Kind of a picture do courts and the judicial process bring to mind? 2. In what ways does the U.S. Supreme Court building resemble a church? 3. Does the Supreme Court rule on the guilt or innocence of the accused or only on whether or not laws and legal procedures conform to the Constitution? 4. Are there any losers among those whose case goes before the Supreme Court? 5. Are all cases sent to the Supreme Court considered there? 6. Why are some legislative and executive rules “vague”? 7. What does “equity” mean? Vocabulary Study I. Supply the word from the text which is a periphrasis of the following (For the answers, see page 23). 1. a chairman’s hammer 2. a dress of office 3. one whose business it is to introduce and direct stranges 4. a passage 5. a fixed bench in a church 6. respectful awe 7. appeal to general principles of justice; (In England, Ireland, U.S.) a system of law that grew up alongside statute law and common law 8. indistinct 9. to comply with 10. one who conforms ecp. with the worship of the established church 11. not valid: nullified 12. to make a temporary stop 13. to push the end of anything against or into 14. to wander over 15. to hit sharply. II. Look up the following words in the English – English dictionary and write out the principal meanings and derivatives. 1. legislature n; 2. resemble v.; 3. regulations n; 4. specify v.; 5. fairness n; 6. dispute n; 7. just a; 8. insert n; 9. precedent n; 10. violate v.; 11. appellate a. III. Find in the texts the English phrases corresponding to the Russian equivalents. km^_[gucijhp_kkaZekm^_[gh]haZk_^Zgby<_joh\gucKm^KR: a^Zgb_ <_joh\gh]h Km^Z \
5

IV. Complete the following text with the words and phrases from the “word bank” using them in the appropriate form. Word Bank a) theft b) lawyers c) In that case d) the lawyer’s fee e) trial f) the prison g) the witness h) accused persons i) court j) to be arrested by police k) to be represented by l) to be innocent m) to fight injustice n) to be found innocent o) to be denied the right p) to afford to. In 1961 a Florida man named Clarence Gideon (a) _________ as he stood near a small store into which someone has broken earlier (c) _________ . Gideon was arrested because another man said he saw the (b) _________ take place. Gideon was not (c) _________ by a lawyer in (d) ________ . He claimed (e) _________ and tried to act as his own lawyer. The (f) ________ succeeded in convincing the jury that Gideon was guilty, and Gideon went to (g) _________. Gideon decided, that he must (h) _________ . He read law books in prison library and then wrote to the Supreme Court, saying (i) ________ to be represented by a lawyer. The Court ruled that Gideon was correct. It said that people who are accused must have lawyers to pay Such (k) ________ . (l), the state must pay (m) _________ . Gideon got a new (n) _________, was represented by a lawyer and (o) _________ . Legal representation is now provided by the state to all (p) _______ who cannot afford to pay for it. Discussion Develop the points or answer the questions (For the answers, see page 23). 1. Can you picture a black or a woman presiding over a U.S. Court? 2. Hundreds of cases that come before the Supreme Court are concerned with freedom of religion, press and speech. A well-known Supreme Court case involved a woman named Madelyn Murray, who believed that freedom of religion also meant the freedom not to have a religion. Mrs. Murray felt it was wrong that in the city of Baltimore, Maryland, public schoolchildren were required to read from the Christian Bible. The Supreme Court agreed with Mrs. Murray. It ruled that the First Amendment to the Constitution requires… 3. In l971, two major United States newspapers began publishing a history of American involvement in the war in Vietnam. The history was in the form of a report prepared for high government officials. It had been stolen from government files and given to the newspapers. The American government went to court to stop the newspapers from publishing the report. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that because the Constitution… 4. Not everyone whose case goes before the Supreme Court is a winner. Losers have included prisoners who claimed they were treated unjustly because they were locked up four to a cell built for one. The Supreme Court…

6

UNIT II The Structure and Jurisdiction of Courts Text A There are two key elements to understanding court organization: the structure of court systems (the number and types of courts) and court jurisdiction (their legal authority to hear different kinds of disputes that people bring to court). Both the structure and jurisdiction of courts are determined by state and federal constitutions and by statutes passed by state legislatures and Congress. The federal courts are defined exclusively by federal law, and each of the fifty state court systems is established and regulated by state governments. These basic organizational features of courts are important, because they provide the basic foundation of court involvement in public policy and affect judicial authority and ability to deal with important social issues. Structure and jurisdiction are impossible to separate completely, because particular courts always have particular jurisdiction. Structure and jurisdiction are created together. Court Structure The federal government and about two-thirds of the states have four basic types of court: a supreme court, intermediate courts of appeal, trial courts of general jurisdiction, and trial courts of limited jurisdiction. (The federal government also has two special appellate courts with limited jurisdiction and about half the states have no intermediate appellate courts at all.) Courts also have different names in different systems. For instance, New York calls its highest court the Court of Appeals and refers to its major trial courts as supreme courts. In some states, the trial courts are called circuit courts, but in the federal system, the major trial courts are district courts. Although particular courts often have different names, their functions are roughly similar. Table I lists the major types of court that are found in the fifty states and the federal system. Trial Courts Trial courts are the points of entry into the judicial process. Each side in a lawsuit or a case has an opportunity to state its claim or complaint, to present witnesses to prove its version of the facts and circumstances, and to cite the law relevant to the conflict. Both opponents hope the judge or jury will decide that their position is correct. Court cases involve either criminal or civil conflicts. Criminal cases occur when a person has committed an act that is forbidden by state or federal law and is punishable, possibly by a fine payable to the government or a jail term. Crimes are illegal acts against “the people” or the state. Civil cases include all other cases and do not involve jail terms. Civil cases often pit a government against an individual or a group, but the issues usually concern the enforcement of various government policy. Civil cases not involving the government are conflicts among private parties and

7

usually involve personal injury, property damage, debts, or some other conflict and claims for the transfer of money from one side to the other. In civil cases, sometimes neither side is seen as completely right and compromise financial settlements are imposed. Many states have separate divisions of the same trial court that specialize in civil or criminal cases. Trial courts are divided into two groups: those with general and those with limited jurisdiction. Limited jurisdiction means that the particular court may hear only certain narrowly defined categories of cases. Many states, for example, have specialized trial courts that hear only traffic violations cases (Traffic Court) or divorce and child custody cases (Family Court), or cases involving youthful criminal offenders (Juvenile Court), or small amounts of money (Small Claim-Courts), etc. Although the states are increasingly inclined to reduce the number and variety of these courts, some states may have ten or more of these kinds of court. The federal government also has several trial courts of limited jurisdiction. They include the Court of Claims, which generally hears disputes between business contractors and the U.S. government. Court of International Trade (formerly Customs Court), which settles disputes over duties levied on imports, a Tax Court, which hears disputes regarding payment of federal income taxes. Trial courts of general jurisdiction have broader authority to hear a large variety of cases. Any dispute involving more than a specific amount of money (for example, more than a $750 to $1500 jurisdiction limit in many state small claims courts) may be heard by a state trial court of general jurisdiction. Most criminal cases involving serious crimes also are heard by these courts. The particular name and the authority of these courts vary among the states, but their common characteristic is their authority to hear a large variety of more significant cases. The federal district courts may hear federally related cases that do not fall within the authority of one of the specialized federal courts.

TABLE 1 THE STRUCTURE OF AMERICAN COURTS Federal courts U.S. Supreme Court Court of Appeals

District Court

State courts Highest appellate courts State Supreme Court Intermediate courts of appeals Superior Court, District or Circuit Court of Appeals, etc. (found in about two-thirds of the states) Trial courts of general jurisdiction District Court, Circuit Court, Court of Common Pleas, etc

8

Trial courts of limited jurisdiction Court of Claims Small Claims Court Court of International Trade Traffic Court Tax Court Family Court Juvenile Court County Court Justice of the Peace etc.

Text B Appellate Courts A person found guilty in a criminal case, and either party in a civil suit, if sufficiently unhappy about the outcome of a trial, may appeal to another court for review of the decision of the trial court. Everyone is entitled to one appeal. Supreme courts and intermediate court of appeals are the main appellate courts. Appellate courts do not hold new trials, but only review the written record of the lower court and hear the arguments of opposing attorneys. Appeals courts determine if the trial judge made an important error in procedure or interpretation of law that would require the appeals court to reverse the decision and perhaps to order a new trial. Exceptions sometimes occur in cases appealed from trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Appeals from these courts may require new trials in trial courts of general jurisdiction. Certain other appeals are heard by intermediate appeals courts, while others, often involving more serious crime and more money, are reviewed by the highest court. The formal purpose of intermediate courts of appeals is to hear certain types of cases that are considered to be less important and to take on some of the work of the highest appellate court. Some state supreme courts, for example, review criminal cases only when the death penalty is imposed. Others hear cases if the prison term handed down by the trial court is 5 years or more. Lesser penalties are reviewed by intermediate appellate courts. Cases involving less than certain amounts of money, perhaps $10,000 or less, will be reviewed only by the intermediate appellate courts in certain states. Cases In the federal district courts may be appealed to the federal courts of appeals. This is the last stop for most litigants in the federal system. There also are two special federal appellate courts of limited jurisdiction (not listed in Table I). They are the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, which hears appeals from the Court of International Trade and reviews decisions of the U.S. Patent Office, and the Court of Military Appeals, which hears appeals from court martials. Appeals lo the U.S. Supreme Court may come from federal courts of appeals, state supreme courts, federal district courts under certain circumstances, and certain federal courts of limited jurisdiction. Generally, cases involving the constitutionality of federal and state laws and conflicts between federal and state law may be appealed. Many state supreme court decisions that deny a litigant’s claim based on the Constitution are appealed to the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court also

9

interprets federal law governing the right of appeal and can largely determine for itself which cases it will decide. In particular, cases may be appealed if they involve a “substantial federal question,” but the Supreme Court must determine what that means for each case. In practice, the Supreme Court rejects most appeals without much comment other than perhaps to note that they lack a substantial federal question or that the court lacks jurisdiction. This means the lower federal courts and the state supreme courts usually have the last word. Comprehension Scan the texts for answers to the following questions. 1. What are the key elements of court organization? 2. What are four basic types of court? 3. Where are circuit courts? 4. Where are district courts? 5. When do criminal cases occur? 6. What do civil cases include? 7. What does “limited jurisdiction” mean? 8. What does “general jurisdiction” mean? 9. What are the main appellate courts? 10.What sort of appeals do the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals hear? 11.Can appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court be rejected? Vocabulary Study I. Supply the word from the text which is a periphrasis of the following (For the answers, see page 23). 1. main element 2. define 3. approximately 4. quote 5. prison 6. levy 7. concerning 8. important 9. refuse to accept 10. attorney 11. care; imprisonment 12. cause to have a tendency 13. make less 14. authority 15. mistake 16. complaint. II. Match the words with the definitions (For the answers, see page 23). a) 1. fine 1. question to be decided in a law court 2. litigant 2. statement by a judge, etc, of punishment 3. injury 3. statement of property (money) given to a person 4. penalty 4. to act contrary to the law 5. violate 5. punishment for doing wrong 6. financial 6. person engaged in a lawsuit settlement 7. case 7. harm; damage; wrongful treatment 8. sentence 8. sum of money to be paid as a penalty for Breaking a law or rule

10

b) 1. customs 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

1. Zi_eeypbhgguc km^ n_^_jZevguc km^ \lhjhc bgklZgpbb friend of the 2. hdjm`ghckm^n_^_jZevguckm^i_j\hcbgklZgpbb court (Latin: amicus curiae) probate court 3. xjbklij_^klZ\eyxsbcqvb-eb[hbgl_j_ku\km^_ 4. ^he`ghklgh_ ebph gZ kem`[_ ijZ\hihjy^dZ hkh[ lawman r_jbnbebihebp_ckdbc juvenile court 5. km^ih^_eZfg_kh\_jr_gghe_lgbo 6. km^ihgZke_^kl\_gguf^_eZfml\_j`^_gbxaZ\_sZgbc district court bmklZgh\e_gbxhi_dmgkl\Z 7. ebph beb ]jmiiZ ebp aZbgl_j_kh\Zggu_ \ j_r_gbb counselor km^_[gh]h bkdZ gh g_ y\eyxsb_ky klhjhgZfb km^_[gh]hjZa[bjZl_evkl\Z Circuit court 8. lZfh`gy of appeals

III. Complete the following text (For the answers, see page 23). Judges have believed that courts should be free from “outside” ________ that might threaten judicial _________ and integrity. This usually has meant freedom from popular or partisan political pressure that could bias judicial decision making or creat an appearance of improper judicial ________ . However, judges also have interpreted or used the idea of judicial independence to resist review of their decisions and local court procedures by _________ .

Discussion Agree or disagree with the following statement. (Can you apply it to the judicial system in this country?)

“Improving the judiciary requires creating new courts and serapping old ones, improving the methods for choosing judges, changing procedures for managing cases, creating new sources of money for the courts, and adopting modern management methods. In general, reformers see efficient courts as something like efficient businesses that produce the most products (decisions) as fast as possible and at the least possible cost.”

11

UNIT III Judicial Administration Text A Judicial administration and court reform are closely related to organization and jurisdiction. Administration and reform are concerned with the day-to-day work of the courts and how it can be improved. However, the judicial process is not like mathematics or engineering; there are various ways that courts can be managed and major differences on what the goals of the judicial process ought to be. People do not agree on a single definition of court improvement. Administration of the Courts Judicial administration includes a wide range of activities involving the operations of courts. Some definitions equate judicial administration with anything having to do with the judicial process. One writer states, for example, that judicial administration involves “The direction of and influences of those who are expected to contribute to just and efficient case processing…” This implies too that anything that affects justice, however one chooses to define that, also concerns judicial administration. Most definitions of judicial administration also are very reformist in that they are concerned mostly with improving the quality of court procedures and decisions. One assumption, for example, is that justice can be improved if we somehow get better judges to run the courts. Another is that speedy justice is better justice and court administrators constantly are searching for new ways to reduce delay in processing cases. Judicial administration involves two broad areas; the management of court organization and personnel and the processing of litigation. Court management covers a number of specific areas such as the organization and jurisdiction of courts; the selection and tenure of judges and the hiring, training, and supervision of all other court workers; expenditures and budgeting for personnel and court operations; and routine clerical tasks. Processing of litigation usually concerns speed and cost and establishing uniform rules of court operations to reduce confusion and inequality in how cases are treated. Improved jury management and transferring judges to speed up trials also are aspects of organizing litigation. The watchwords in judicial administration in the United States have been decentralization and local control, but there is much current disagreement among those who feel that locally managed justice is best and others who believe that equal and efficient justice is produced by well organized and centrally managed court systems. Competition for control over court operations is the politics of judicial administration. Administration in the Federal Courts Until 1934, the federal courts were managed and supervised by the U.S. Justice Department, which is an agency of the executive branch. Along with its

12

responsibilities in national law enforcement and litigation on behalf of the U.S. Government, the Justice Department supervised individual court clerks in each federal court. Little direct supervision or control was possible from Washington, however, since the clerks were appointed by federal judges, not the attorney general, and were more likely to listen to the directions and wishes of local judges than to uniform standards created by the Justice Department. Judges and clerks also resented control by the executive branch and generally resisted attempts to centralize judicial administration in Washington. Besides control of judicial housekeeping, the Justice Department had the power to transfer judges and prosecutors to different judicial districts to help out in courts with especially heavy caseloads. This function may seem like a mere administrative detail, but judges and U.S. senators often believed the Justice Department made transfers in order to line up judges to decide particular cases who were sympathetic to the government. Judges generally were dissatisfied with the Justice Department, but lawyers and other judges also felt that the federal district courts were too inefficient, and unresponsive to national standards. The great depression of the 1930s led to major changes in federal judicial administration. The federal courts generally lost prestige and political support after much of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation was declared unconstitutional by the conservative Supreme Court. A very popular leader President Roosevelt launched a plan to increase the membership or “pack” the Court with additional judges whom he would appoint and who, presumably, would rule in support of new Democratic party policy.

Text B The main national decision-making organization is the Judicial Conference of the United States, which includes the Chief Justice as the presiding member, the chief judges of each of the judicial circuits, plus one district judge from each circuit. The conference meets twice each year for about two days to discuss various issues relating to internal administration and to make recommendations to the Chief Justice for necessary changes. It deals with a variety of topics including developing rules of judicial procedure, making policy on the transfer of judges within circuits, and making recommendations for congressional legislation required for creating new judgeships, increasing judicial salaries, budgets for court operations, etc. The conference also has the power to supervise the work of the Administrative Office of the United Stales Courts, which manages the day-to-day operations of the federal courts. A 2-day conference held twice each year could not accomplish very much. Therefore, prior to conference meetings, as many as twenty-five committees, composed of various judges and lawyers from the twelve circuits, are appointed by the Chief Justice to analyze and make recommendations on particular issues that the conference will consider. Positions on the committees provide judges and lawyers with prestige as well as influence on the conference before it makes policy for the entire federal court system. Participation by so many people adds legitimacy to the work of the

13

conference, but it also draws lower court judges into policymaking and makes them partly responsible for the success or failure of federal judicial administration. Including many district and circuit judges and lawyers in national judicial administration satisfies the demands for exerting local influence in administrative policymaking, but it also limits the authority of the conference in administration. Proponents of strong, centralized judicial administration have always maintained that the Judicial Conference and its many feeder committees is too loosely organized to accomplish any real direction and unity in the federal court system. The conference also lacks the power to enforce its policy in the federal courts. This lack of centralized leadership remains an issue today. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is the national agency that manages the day-to-day affairs of the federal courts. But unlike the powerful court administrator proposed in the Roosevelt plan, the head of the administrative office is responsible to the Judicial Conference. He does not make policy or obtain compliance with conference policy in the federal system. The court administrator fulfills the expectations of most judges that the administrator be on tap’ but not “on top.” The office is the source of some ideas for the Judicial Conference, and it gathers statistical information on the work of the courts, supervises clerical and secretarial personnel, probation officers, and others, prepares the budget along the lines established by the Judicial Conference and serves as the official representative of the Judicial Conference in Congress. The office suggests changes, but does not provide leadership. Judges retain the prerogative of making administrative decisions for the courts. Despite occasional efforts to develop a congressional lobbying effort, the Administrative Office generally has not been particularly powerful in obtaining money for the courts or congressional support for court proposals. Both former Chief Justice Earl Warren and Chief Justice Warren Burger have felt that the federal courts are not very important to Congress and, since the courts are outside the mainstream of the popular political process, they are unable to bargain with Congress to obtain adequate budgets and administrative changes. The federal courts have another national agency, the Federal Judicial Center, which was created by Congress in 1967. It conducts research on court operations and procedures and produces educational programs for personnel in the federal judicial system. It is managed by a director appointed by the Chief Justice. The Director of the Administrative Office and five judges elected by the Judicial Conference serve with the Chief Justice as an advisory board of directors. The Federal Judicial Center has no direct supervisory role, but provides information to other sectors of the federal court system and to any others interested in research and management of the federal courts. In addition to the Judicial Conference, which makes policy for all the federal courts, each circuit has its own regional Judicial Council and Judicial Conference. The conference is composed of district and appeals court judges and lawyers and meets once each year to discuss issues and problems of interest.

14

Comprehension Sean the texts for answers to the following questions. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

What does judicial administration include? Why are most definitions of judicial administration described as “reformist”? What were the federal courts supervised by until 1934? Was direct supervision from Washington possible? Why were judges generally dissatisfied with the justice Department? What changes in federal judicial administration took place after the great depression of the 1930s? 7. What was President Roosevelt’s plan aimed at? 8. What was the proposal of federal judges and national leaders in court reform like? 9. What is the main national decision-making organization like? 10.What kind of topics does it deal with? 11.What sort of the national agency is the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts? 12.In what way does the Administrative Office develop a “lobbying effort”? 13.What does the “Federal Judicial Centre” deal with? Vocabulary Study I. Match the words from the texts in column A with the corresponding words in column B. A 1. internal 2. confusion 3. presumably 4. mainstream 5. cut 6. goal 7. equate 8. watchword 9. current 10.imply 11.former 12.retain 13.efficient

B 1. disorder 2. aim 3. treat (one thing as being equal) 4. I suppose 5. generally accepted; of the present time 6. make a suggestion 7. producing a desired result 8. maintain 9. reduction 10.password 11.domestic 12.tendency 13.of an earlier period

II. Look up the following words in the English-English dictionary and write out the principal meanings and derivatives. 1. assumption 2. tenure 3. supervision 4. expenditures 5. inequality 6. resent 7. resist 8. unresponsive 9. appropriation 10. bar 11. shift 12. accomplish 13. loosely 14. compliance 15. probation 16. advisory

15

III. Explain the following pairs of words. (For the answers, see page 23). 1. case backlogs 4. case – history

2. case – work 5. case – law

3. case – book 6. case – load.

IV. Complete the following text with the words from the “word bank”. Word Bank a) maintain d) Lobbying g) officials

b) represent e) improper h) efforts

c) lobbyists f) occur i) the voice

The political process does not stop after an election. Many organizations with special interests (a) ________ paid representatives in the national and state capitals. They are called (b) ________ who try to influence government policy in favor of the (c) ________ . (D) ________ is part of the American political system. There sometimes (e) ________ abuses in (f) ________ practices when lobbyists use (g) ________ methods in their (h) ________ to influence government legislation to do away with abuses but it is not particularly effective. As it is, lobbying is a means of getting across the voice of different groups of population to the government bodies. Discussion. I. Agree or disagree. 1. The Americans call themselves a nation of laws. This governs Americans’ everyday activities. 2. The structure of the court system in the United States guarantees proper observance of laws. 3. Abraham Lincoln was known for his honesty. His nickname, in fact, was “Honest Abe”. Honesty is an important quality in a leader, politician and a judge.

Unit IV Court Jurisdiction Text A The presence of many state and federal courts provides numerous locations to which citizens can bring cases, but selecting the proper court requires sorting out the jurisdiction of the many different ones. The decision about which court to use is not automatic. The federal system is not very complex, since there is only one district court in each district and, with few exceptions, the jurisdiction of all district courts is

16

the same nationwide. However, the authority of state courts is not always so clear. To make things more confusing, state and federal courts often may hear the same types of cases. Overlapping Jurisdiction Overlapping jurisdiction occurs when more than one court in the same judicial system may hear a particular case. This occurs most often in the states where new trial courts of limited jurisdiction were added often over the years without much consideration to the possible overlapping authority of new and old courts. Often, court jurisdiction was only vaguely spelled out in state law so that overlapping authority practically was guaranteed. The result was that more than one type of court or a number of identical courts in a particular geographic area could hear the same case. Besides creating much confusion, overlapping jurisdiction makes it possible for both sides in a lawsuit to try to locate a court in which they believe the rules of procedure, the workload of the court, or the attitudes of judges and perhaps prosecutors may be most beneficial to them. Part of their legal strategy may include trying to transfer a case from one court to another in order to delay a judicial decision, or in hopes of getting a more favorable decision. Concurrent Jurisdiction Not only do the jurisdictions of some state courts overlap, but state and federal courts also may hear many of the same cases. This is called concurrent jurisdiction. In these instances, citizens find that frequently it is possible to choose between state or federal courts as part of a strategy to win their case. For example, Congress has given the federal courts the authority to hear cases involving citizens of different states (diversity cases) when the sum of money involved is over $10,000. But state courts also may hear these same cases. State courts have the exclusive authority to hear cases involving less than this amount. Concurrent jurisdiction gives the litigants in a case a number of options. For example, if the money involved is close to, but less than, $10,000, the person initiating the lawsuit (plaintiff) may claim $10,000 or more in order to get the case into a federal district court; or, the plaintiff may keep the claim under $10,000 in the belief that state courts will be more favorable. Another example is a case in which the claim for money is over $10,000, but since the case is against an individual or corporation in a state far away from the plaintiff, the case may be filed in the home state court with hopes of making a defense expensive and inconvenient for the defendant and to gain the sympathy of a judge and jury from the plaintiff’s home ground. A defendant in a case like this may try to have the case transferred to a federal district court by convincing a federal judge that the case involves an important or substantial federal question, which is an additional basis of federal court jurisdiction. Exactly what is a federal question depends on which federal statute or provision of the Constitution is cited and how it is made into an issue by lawyers. Raising a federal question sometimes requires an imaginative legal argument, since it is primarily a strategy to get a case into the federal courts. However, if a case already has begun in a state court, federal judges are likely to defer to state authority and permit state courts to decide them unless there is a very compelling reason to

17

intervene. Cases raising federal questions also may be started in the federal courts. Nearly one-third of all federal civil cases cite diversity of citizen-ship of federal questions as the basis for seeking federal jurisdiction. The federal district courts also have the authority to hear cases involving the Constitution, federal law, admiralty and maritime issues, the actions of executive agencies, and they have the exclusive power to hear bankruptcy petitions. Cases involving numerous federal laws are likely to be heard in the federal courts but the federal courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction over them, which means that state courts also may hear some Cases involving federal law. If an individual argues that he or she has a right or claim under federal law, there are no financial or diversity of citizenship requirements to having the case decided by the federal courts. The possible laws involved in these cases are numerous and include: civil rights, constitutional rights of criminal defendants, labor laws. Social Security, commerce, antitrust, and others. In many of these cases the federal government itself is a party.

Text B Besides overlapping in a variety of civil cases, both {he federal and state court systems decide criminal cases. Most crimes only violate state law and can be tried only in the state courts. Certain other specialized crimes, such as counterfeiting, treason, and illegal immigration are federal crimes tried only in the federal courts. However, many other crimes violate both state and federal laws and could involve either court system. Examples are robbery and larceny, embezzlement, auto theft (primarily organized and interstate crime), forgery, and narcotics. It also is possible for an individual to be prosecuted in both state and federal courts for a single act that violates different laws. For example, a person charged with murder or other crimes of violence usually will be tried in a state trial court of general jurisdiction, but also could be charged and prosecuted in federal court for a different crime, most likely conspiracy to deny the victim’s civil rights. Therefore, killing another person can be defined and punished differently in the state and federal courts. Federal prosecuting attorneys are likely to file a case if state prosecutors fail to act in a case, or if federal prosecutors and the U.S. Justice Department believe that justice was not served by a state court verdict. An example of this overlap occurred in the recent case of a Miami policeman who confessed to cooperating with other police officers in allegedly murdering a black traffic violator but was granted immunity from prosecution by the state in exchange for his testimony against the other policemen. At the close of the state trial he was charged with the federal crime of violating the civil rights of the victim. Federal involvement in state cases is not merely a technical or strictly legal issue, since it is not automatically required by law. Judges, prosecutors, and other officials in the U.S. Justice Department who believe that state courts have not acted justly use their own discretion to start federal cases to “reverse” or compensate for state decisions. These are newsworthy and controversial policy decisions that reflect different political and social values and the ability of various interest groups to

18

stimulate governmental action. The Miami case is a dramatic example. The acquittal of the police for murder was followed by terribly destructive rioting by blacks, who charged state officials with gross injustice and insensitivity to the rights of black citizens. When federal officials initiate their own cases after conclusion of such a state case, they believe the evidence warrants conviction for some crime and they decide to try again in their own judicial territory. A more common and typical link between state and federal judicial systems occurs when convicted criminals held in state jails or prisons petition the federal courts for a review of their conviction and imprisonment, arguing that state actions violated their constitutional rights. They use a legal strategy based on federal habeas corpus laws. Habeas corpus literally means “you have the body” and it requires a state government to show good reason for the imprisonment. It is an attempt by a prisoner to obtain a federal review of a conviction on constitutional grounds and a new trial or release from jail. Although it is relatively easy and common for prisoners to try to obtain a reversal of their conviction on these grounds, federal judges normally require that state prisoners appeal to other state courts before granting a release or a reversal. Comprehension Scan the texts for answers to the following questions. 1. Is the decision about which courts to use automatic? 2. The federal system is not very complex, is it? 3. The authority of state courts is not always clear, is it? 4. What does “Overlapping Jurisdiction” mean? 5. What does “concurrent jurisdiction” mean? 6. What does the term “diversity cases” mean? 7. What options does concurrent jurisdiction give the litigants? 8. What are the peculiarities of raising a federal question? 9. What sort of crimes are referred to “federal crimes”? 10.What are the examples of crimes violating both state and federal laws? 11.Is federal involvement in state cases merely a technical or strictly legal issue? 12.In what way do prisoners try to obtain a reversal of their conviction? Vocabulary Study I. Supply the word from the texts which is a periphrasis of the following. (For the answers, see page 24). 1. throughout a nation 2. sufficiently interesting for reporting 3. involve duplication 4. judgement that a person is not guilty 5. the convicting of a person for a crime 6. written order giving official authority 7. having good effect 8. violent outburst of lawlessness 9. person engaged in a lawsuit 10. cooperating 11. right or power of choosing 12. variety 13. give way 14. that branch of Government which controls

19

the Navy 15. connected with the sea or navigation 16. happen 17. put forward as a reason or excuse 18. exemption

Vocabulary Study I. Supply the word from the texts which is a periphrasis of the following. (For the answers, see page 24). 1. throughout a nation 2. sufficiently interesting for reporting 3. involve duplication 4. judgement that a person is not guilty 5. the convicting of a person for a crime 6. written order giving official authority 7. having good effect 8.violent outburst of lawlessness 9. person engaged in a lawsuit 10.cooperating 11.right or power of choosing 12.variety 13. give way 14. that branch of Government which controls the navy 15.connected with the sea or navigation 16.happen 17.put forward as a reason or excuse 19. exemption II. Recall the texts or use the following expressions in the situations of your own. 1. bring cases 2. initiate a lawsuit 3. make into an issue 4.in these instances 5. raise question 6. creat confusion 7.use one’s own discretion 8.win the case 9. hear cases 10. a number of options 10. home ground 11.gross injustice 12. substantial federal question 13. legal argument 14. dramatic example 15. release from jail 16. convicted criminals 17. the exclusive authority 18. compelling reason 19.file the case 20.gain the sympathy (of) 20. seek federal jurisdiction III. Name the crimes (For the answers, see page 24). 1. 2. 3. 4.

Copying (coins, hand writing etc) in order to deceive) betrayal of one’s country or ruler stealing using (money or property placed in one’s care) deceitfully and illegally for one’s own benefit 5. making false money or signatures 6. attacking (a person) violently 7. killing a person for political reasons 8. unlawful killing of a human being on purpose 9. stealing from shops while acting as an ordinary customer 10.stealing goods from, eg a lorry, by stopping it in transit 11.getting (goods) secretely and illegally (into, out of, a country) 12.buying and selling drugs illegally IV. Read the text below and decide which word A, B or C best fits each gap.

20

Although we have focused on the (1) ________ between state and federal systems, most court cases are desided by state courts. Most cases, for example, do not (2) ________ citizens from different states and many cases involve much less than $10,000. Few also involve federal laws or the national Constitution. The large (3) ________ of cases, including divorces, traffic accidents, landlord-tenant disputes, and most (4) ________ never become the (5) _________ of the federal courts. The workload of the federal courts has (6) ________ sharply in recent years, but the total number of cases filed in all federal trial courts nationwide does not exceed about 195,000. Current (7) ________ are that there are over 17,000 state courts, most of them trial courts of limited jurisdiction, which produce many millions of decisions each year. Therefore, while there is overlap in the jurisdiction of state and federal court systems, most cases are handled exclusively by state courts. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

A. cooperation A. embrace A. pile A. crimes A. interest A. increased A. figures

B. competition B. accept B. volume B. murders B. concern B. raised B. estimates

C. overlap C. involve C. amount C. misdemeanours C. business C. rose C. calculations

Discussion I. Comment on the following well - known English sayings: 1) Crime doesn’t pay 2) The greater the crime, the higher the gallows II. Can you think of any recent court cases where you feel the law has been unjust? Appendix (Law stories for reading) Formal Legal Rules and Equity in Conflict Fedo and Hattie Mae Kenon lived in a small, ramshackle frame house in rural north Florida. They had worked most of their lives picking tobacco for local farmers and existed now on about $400 per month in Social Security payments. Their house was worth $7500, and they were required to pay $3.05 each year in county property taxes. Fedo Kenon, aged 65, somewhat retarded and a patient in various mental hospitals over the years, paid the tax each year except in 1975, Mrs. Kenon was unaware of the missed tax payment. John G. Barrow, a local investor, noticed the Kenon property listed in a legal advertisement containing property with overdue taxes. Following a long-standing slate statute and routine legal procedure, he paid the tax himself and received a certificate from the county tax collector which gave Barrow the right to collect the

21

back taxes from the property owner plus interest. The law stated that if the property owner fails to pay the amount due for two succeeding years, Barrow could apply for a tax deed giving him lawful ownership to the property. After waiting three years instead of the minimum of two. Barrow paid required fees of $102 to the clerk of the court and received a tax-deed giving him ownership of the Kenon home. Barrow informed the Kenons that he owned their house and gave them notice to buy the property from him or to move within a specified time. The Kenons were unable to pay or to afford other housing and they refused to move. Their plight made the national news and the Kenons began to receive financial contributions. They also obtained free legal services from a local legal aid organization. Barrow sued to assert his lawful right of ownership and to move the Kenons from the house. The trial court judge decided that although Barrow had followed proper procedures sanctioned by state law, the doctrine of equity required that he be prevented from acquiring the Kenon home. Not only was the amount of money paid for the property very small, but giving Barrow title to the property would impose a terrible burden and hardship on the Kenons. Investor Barrow appealed, but the higher court affirmed the trial judge’s decision. The Kenons kept their home and planned to use some of the $1 1,000 raised in contributions to make long-needed repairs. The state legislature also enacted a new law designed to prevent similar tax sales from recurring. Barrow got nothing. Using the Jurisdiction of State Courts in a National conflict: Local Judge Referees Corporate Fight Circuit Judge John Rudd put it frankly. He felt out of place in the middle of a fight by two giant business conglomerates for control of Conoco, Inc. “It does seem a little ludicrous for this little court, this little state, to be involved in a matter of such magnitude.” In fact, he said, he felt imposed upon by Conoco, which had turned to him to block its pending sale to Joseph E. Seagram and Sons. Conocb’s Board of Directors has voted to merge with E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. Conoco, Inc., one of the nation’s largest oil companies, filed a case in a Florida state trial court to try to stop Seagram’s Distillers from buying a majority of Conoco stock, which would have given it control of the oil company, Conoco lawyers claimed that a sale to Seagram’s would violate Florida law, which prohibits liquor manufacturers and distributors from holding retail alcoholic beverage licenses. Kayo Oil, a Conoco subsidiary, sells beer and wine at its Florida gas stations and might be forced to give up its liquor licenses if Seagram’s purchased Conoco. The trial judge concluded that a loss of 37 liquor licenses, which produced about $1 million annually in liquor sales, would not be a big financial loss for giant Conoco. He dismissed their suit against Seagram’s and implied that Conoco simply had used Florida law to fend off Seagram’s attempt to buy Conoco. Du pont later outbid Seagram’s for control of Conoco Oil.

22

A Case of Merit Selection A vacancy was created on a north Florida trial court in early August when Governor Bob Graham promoted one of the judges to the intermediate District Court of Appeals. To fill the trial court vacancy the state constitution requires the governor to appoint a new judge temporarily until a permanent successor is chosen at the next election. The next primary election was scheduled for October 7, but the qualifying period for getting on the ballot already had ended. A temporary appointee, therefore, would serve for two years before another scheduled election would be held. To avoid a long temporary term, the governor issued an executive order calling for a special judicial election to occur on the same day as the upcoming primary. Six candidates from different parts of the judicial district immediately declared for the vacancy and began to campaign. Many local lawyers and politicians guessed that the governor would appoint the winner of the special election to the temporary vacancy. But the state constitution also requires that the governor appoint a lawyer to a temporary judicial vacancy only from those recommended by a merit judicial nominating commission. But this panel had not met before the special election was announced and the six candidates had declared for office. After the governor ordered the election, the merit panel quickly gathered to interview potential appointees and gave the governor a list of three names, which were to be kept secret until after the election in order to avoid influencing the voters. However, the local newspaper, arguing that the choices of the merit panel were part of the public record, threatened to sue if the names were not released. The governor immediately complied. Despite the merit panel’s legal right and opportunity to choose any lawyer in the judicial district, all three names on the merit list were among the six candidates who previously had announced for the election. The best known was Mallory Home, a former local legislator with 20 years experience in the state capital. He recently had become a lobbyist after losing a statewide election for U.S. senator. Another was J. Lewis Hall, a socially prominent lawyer related to a former state supreme court judge and other local officials. He also received the editorial endorsement of the only area newspaper. The third was Robert Vossler, a less well connected but generally respected local attorney. All three also were residents of Tallahassee, the district’s only city. The three candidates not included on the list lived in small towns throughout the judicial district. They generally were angered at the public announcement, believing the voters would ignore them. With the primary election scheduled in three weeks, the candidates got busy. Home immediately raised over $23,000, mostly from other area politicians and businessmen. This was nearly three times the amount raised by Hail, the newspaper endorsed candidate. All others spent their own cash or raised small amounts largely from friends and relatives. The money generally was spent on a media campaign. Home and Hall received most of the votes, but neither won a majority. Thus a runoff election was required between the two top contenders in the general election on November 4. Despite criticism from some area lawyers, the governor did not make a temporary appointment following the primary election. He insisted that the state constitution gave him the discretion to determine exactly when the appointment

23

should be made. On November 4, Hall won a majority of the district votes and an aide to the governor said that the newly elected judge would be appointed to fill the temporary vacancy until the regular judicial term began in January. Answer Key Unit I Ex. I (page 4). 1. gavel 2. robe 3. usher 4. aisle 5. pew 6. reverence 7. equity 8. vague 9. conform 10. (church) conformist 11. void 12. hault 13. poke 14. roam 15. rap

1. 2.

3. 4.

Discussion (page 5). There is an increasing number of female and black, but normally a middle-aged white man presides over a court. The First Amendment to the Constitution requires the state to be neutral in its relations with believers and nonbelievers. Thus, any religions exercises in public schools are unconstitutional. Because the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press the government could not do this – and the newspapers continued to publish installments of the report. The Supreme Court did not think this “overcrowding” was “cruel and unusual punishment”, which the Constitution prohibits.

Unit II Ex. I (page 9). 1. Key elements 2. determine 3. roughly 4. cite 5. jail 6. impose 7. regarding 8. substantial 9. reject 10. lawyer 11. custody 12. incline 13. reduce 14. jurisdiction 15. error 16. claim Ex. II (page 9). a) 1–7 5-4 b) 1–8 4-4

2–8 6-2

3–6 7-3

4–5 8-1

2–7 7-3

3–6 6-2

5–5 8-1

Ex. III (page 10). influence, independence, conduct, appellate courts. Unit III Ex. III (page 15). 1. business affairs (eg correspondence) still to be attended to 2. work involving study of individuals or families with social problems 3. record kept eg. by a doctor

24

4. record of the past History of a person’s health, social state, etc. 5. law, based on decisions made by judges 6. list of cases to be dealt with in a particular period Unit IV (page 19). I. 1. nationwide 2. newsworthy 3. overlap 4. acquittal 5. conviction 6. warrant 7. beneficial (to) 8. riot 9. litigant 10. concurrent 11. option 12. diversity 13. defer to 14. Admiralty 15. maritime 16. occur 17. allege 18. immunity (from prosecution). III. 1. counterfeiting 2. treason 3. larceny 4. embezzlement 5. forgery 6. mugging 7. assassination 8. murder 9. shop lifting 10. hijacking 11. smuggling 12. drug dealing.

KhklZ\bl_eb;Z[mrdbg:gZlhebcIZ\eh\bq >jha^h\ZBjbgZ