The organization of the federal courts today
The American court system is complex. It functions as part of the federal system of government. Each state runs its own court system, and no two are identical. In addition, we have a system of courts for the national government. These federal courts coexist with the state courts.
Individuals fall under the jurisdiction of two different court systems, their state courts and federal courts. They can sue or be sued in either system, depending mostly on what their case is about. The vast majority of cases are resolved in the state courts.
The federal courts are organized in three tiers, like a pyramid. At the bottom of the pyramid are the US district courts, where litigation begins. In the middle are the US courts of appeals. At the top is the US Supreme Court. To appeal means to take a case to a higher court. The courts of appeals and the Supreme Court are appellate courts, with few exceptions; they review cases that have been decided in lower courts. Most federal courts hear and decide a wide array of cases; the judges in these courts are known as generalists.
Find in the text the English equivalents for the words below.
– підпадати під юрисдикцію;
– вирішити справу в судовому порядку;
– суди вищої інстанції;
– суди нижчої інстанції;
– суд останньої інстанції;
Answer the questions.
1. Who is responsible for making laws in the US?
2. Name American courts in the descending order.
3. In what way are the federal courts organized?
4. Where does litigation begin?
5. What does the word “to appeal” mean?
Fill in the blanks.
The federal and state court systems
The federal courts have three tiers: (a)_______courts, courts of (b)_______ and the (c)_______ Court. The (d)________Court was created by the Constitution; all other (e)_________ courts were created by Congress. Most litigation occurs in (f)_______ courts. The structure of (g)_______ courts varies from state to state; usually there are intermediate (j)_______ courts, and courts of last (k)________. State courts were created by state constitutions.
Describe the organization of the courts and judiciary in the USA.
Compare the organization of the courts and judiciary in the USA and the UK.
Unit 10 Legal professions
Transcribe and memorise the following words:
Prosecute, clerk, accuse, require, confront, convict, however, coroner, inquire, violent
Read and translate.
Legal professions in GreatBritain and the usa
Who is who in the law? If you are prosecuted for a crime in Britain, you may meet the following people during your process through the courts:
Magistrates. Magistrates are unpaid judges usually chosen from well-respected people in the local community. They are guided on points of law by an official, the clerk. There are magistrates’ courts in most towns.
Solicitors. After the accused person has been arrested, the first person he or she needs to see is a solicitor. Solicitors are qualified lawyers who advise the accused and help prepare the defence case. The solicitor may represent the accused in court. A person who is too poor to afford a solicitor will usually get Legal Aid — financial help from the state.
Barristers. In more serious cases it is usual for the solicitor to hire a barrister to defend the accused. The barrister is trained in the law and in the skills required to argue a case in court. The barrister for the defence will be confronted by his or her opposite number, the prosecuting barrister who represents the state.
Jurors. A jury consists of twelve men and women from the local community. They sit in the Crown Court with a judge and listen to witnesses for the defence and prosecution before deciding whether the accused is guilty or innocent. In Britain the person is innocent unless found guilty: the prosecution has the burden of establishing guilt.
Judges. Judges are trained lawyers, nearly always ex-barristers who sit in the Crown Court and appeal courts. The judge rules on points of law and makes sure that the trial is conducted properly. He or she does not decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused — that is the jury’s job. However if the jury find the accused guilty, then the judge will pass sentence.
Coroners. Coroners have medical or legal training (or both) and inquire into violent or unnatural deaths.
Clerks of the court. Clerks look after administrative and legal matters in the courtroom.
Sentencing. The most common sentences are fines, prison and probation. Probation is used often with more minor offences. A person on probation must report to a local police station at regular intervals, which restricts his or her movement. A sentence of community service means mat the convicted person has to spend several hours a week doing useful work in his locality.
A few more facts. Children under 10 cannot be charged with a criminal offence.
Offenders between 10 and 17 are tried by special juvenile courts.
The death penalty technically still exists in Britain for some rare offences, such as treason, but is no longer used.
The punishment for murder is a life sentence. This can be much less than a lifetime in prison, depending on factors such as good behaviour.
The most common punishment for crimes — 80 per cent of the total — is a fine.
The Organization of the Federal Courts Today
The American court system is complex, a function in part of our federal system of government. Each state runs its own court system and no two are identical. In addition, we have a system of courts for the national governments. These federal courts coexist with the state courts. Individuals fall under the jurisdiction of both court systems. They can sue or be sued in either system, depending mostly in what their case is about. The vast majority of cases are resolved in the state courts.
The federal courts are organized in three tiers, like a pyramid. At the bottom of the pyramid are the U.S. district courts, where litigation begins. In the middle are the U.S. courts of appeals. At the top is the U.S. Supreme Court. To appeal means to take a case to a higher court. The courts of appeals and the Supreme Court are appellate courts; with few exceptions, they review cases that have been decided in lower courts. Most federal courts hear and decide a wide array of cases; the judges in these courts are known as generalists.
The U.S. District Courts. There are ninety-four federal district courts in the United States. Each state has at least one district court, and no district straddles more than one state. In 1990, nearly 550 full-time federal district court judges dispensed justice in various degrees in almost 267,000 criminal and civil cases.
The district courts are the entry point to the federal court system. When trials occur in the federal system, they take place in the federal district courts. Here is where witnesses testily, lawyers conduct cross-examinations, and judges and juries decide the fate of litigants. There may be more than one judge in each district court, but each case is tried by a single judge, sitting alone.
Criminal and civil cases. Crime is a violation of a law that forbids or commands an activity. Criminal laws are defined in each state’s penal code, as are punishments for violations. Some crimes — murder, rape, arson — are on the books of every state. Others — sodomy between consenting adults is one example — are considered crimes in certain states but not all. Because crime is a violation of public order, the government prosecutes criminal cases. Maintaining public order through the criminal law is largely a state and local function. Federal criminal cases represent only a fraction of all criminal cases prosecuted in the United States. The national penal code is very specialized. It does not cover ordinary crimes, just violations of federal laws, like tax fraud or possession of controlled substances banned by Congress.
The definition of crime rests with the legislative branch. And the definition is dynamic, that is, it is subject to change.
Courts decide both criminal and civil cases. Civil cases stem from disputed claims to something of value. Disputes arise from accidents, contractual obligations, and divorce, for example. Often the parties disagree over tangible issues (the possession of property, the custody of children), but civil cases can involve more abstract issues too (the right to equal accommodations, damages for pain and suffering). The government can be a party to civil disputes, called on to defend or to allege wrongs.
Sources of litigation. Today, the authority of U.S. district courts extends to
• federal criminal cases authorized by federal law (for example, robbery of a federally insured bank or interstate transportation of stolen securities).
• civil cases brought by individuals, groups, or government for alleged violation of federal law (for example, failure of a municipality to implement pollution-control regulations required by a federal agency).
• civil cases brought against the federal government (for example, enforcement of a contract between a manufacturer and a government agency).
Most of the cases scheduled for hearings in the U.S. district courts never are actually tried. One side may be using a lawsuit as a threat to exact a concession from the other. Often the parties settle their own dispute. Less frequently, cases end with adjudication, a court judgment resolving the parties’ claims and ultimately enforced by the government. When district judges adjudicate cases, they usually offer written reasons to support their decisions. When the issues or circumstances of cases are novel, judges can publish opinions, explanations justifying their rulings.
Precedent and decision making. Following review of the briefs and, in many appeals, oral argument, the three-judge panel will meet to reach a judgment. One of the three judges attempts to summarize the panel’s views, although each judge remains free to disagree with the reasons or with the judgment. The influence of published appellate opinions can reach well beyond the immediate case. For example, a lawsuit turning on the meaning of the Constitution produces a case that then serves as a precedent for subsequent cases; that is, the decision becomes a basis for deciding similar cases in the same way. Although district court judges sometimes publish their opinions, it is the exception rather than the rule. At the appellate level, however, precedent requires that opinions be written.
Decision making according to precedent is central to the operation of our legal system, providing continuity and predictability. This bias in favor of existing decisions is captured by the Latin expression «stare decisis», which means «let the decision stand.» But the use of precedent and the principle of «stare decisis» do not make lower-court judges cogs in a judicial machine. «If precedent clearly governed,» remarked one federal judge, «a case would never get as far as the Court of Appeals: the parties would settle.
Judges on the courts of appeals direct their energies toward correcting errors in district court proceedings and interpreting the law (in the course of writing opinions). When judges interpret the law, they often modify existing laws. In effect, they are making policy. Judges are politicians in the sense that they exercise political power, but the black robes that distinguish judges from other politicians signal constraints on their exercise of power.
Judges make policy in two different ways. Occasionally, in the absence of legislation, they employ rules from prior decisions. We call this body of rules the common or judge-made law. The roots of the common law lie in the English legal system. Contracts, property, and torts (an injury or wrong to the person or property of another) are common-law domains. The second area of judicial lawmaking involves the application of statutes enacted by Congress. The judicial interpretation of legislative acts is called statutory construction. The application of a statute is not always clear from its wording. To determine how a statute should be applied, judges first look for the legislature’s intent, reading reports of committee hearings and debates in Congress. If these sources do not clarify the statutes meaning, the court does. With or without legislation to guide them, judges on the courts of appeals and district courts look to the relevant opinions of the Supreme Court for authority to decide the issues before them.
Although the Supreme Court has the final say on what a law means, its decisions often fail to address the precise issue confronting lower-court judges. This means that federal judges can sometimes exercise as much political power as the High Court justices themselves. For example, in 1955 federal judges in Alabama were called on to determine whether, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Alabama’s racially segregated public transportation facilities violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Because applicable Supreme Court precedents appeared to go in opposite directions, three federal judges from the Deep South had to decide which path to take.
The Organization of the Federal Courts Today
The American court system is complex. It functions as part of the federal system of government. Each state runs its own court system, and no two are identical. In addition, we have a system of courts for the national government. These federal courts coexist with the state courts.
Individuals fall under the jurisdiction of two different court systems, their state courts and federal courts. They can sue or be sued in either system, depending mostly on what their case is about. The vast majority of cases are resolved in the state courts.
The federal courts are organized in three tiers, like a pyramid. At the bottom of the pyramid are the US district courts, where litigation begins. In the middle are the US courts of appeals. At the top is the US Supreme Court. To appeal means to take a case to a higher court. The courts of appeals and the Supreme Court are appellate courts, with few exceptions, they review cases that have been decided in lower courts. Most federal courts hear and decide a wide array of cases; the judges in these courts are known as generalists.
1. Find in the text the English equivalents for the words below.
— подпадать под юрисдикцию;
— разрешить дело в судебном порядке;
— судебное разбирательство, тяжба;
— суд последней инстанции;
2. Answer the questions.
1. Who is responsible for making laws in the US?
2. Name American courts in the descending order.
3. In what way are the federal courts organized?
4. Where does litigation begin?
5. What does the word «to appeal» mean?
3. Fill in the blanks.
The Federal and State Court Systems
US Attorneys
The Justice Department is responsible for faithful execution of the laws under the president’s authority. The main administrators of federal law enforcement are the ninety-four US attorneys, appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. Unlike federal judges, these appointees serve at the pleasure of the president and are expected to relinquish their positions when the reins of government change hands.
There is a US attorney in each federal judicial district. Their staffs of assistant attorneys vary in size with the amount of litigation in the district. US attorneys have considerable discretion, which makes them powerful political figures in any community. Their decision to prosecute or not affects the wealth, freedom, rights, and reputation of individuals and organizations in the district.
US attorneys are political appointees who often harbour political ambitions. Their position commands media attention and can serve political goals. In 1983 President Reagan appointed Rudolph Giuliani as US attorney for the Southern District of New York (covering a large portion of the New York metropolitan area). Over the next five years, Giuliani notched his briefcase with dozens of successful prosecutions of elected officials, judges, organized crime figures, and Wall Street inside traders. Giuliani’s activities generated reels and reams of favourable press coverage, he even appeared on a Newsweek cover. This kind of public exposure can help a US attorney launch a successful career in elected office. As a powerful prosecutor or potential opponent, Giuliani’s name must make some politicians shudder.
5. Paraphrase the following expressions.
a) faithful execution of laws;
b) under somebody’s authority;
f) amount of litigation;
g) to prosecute; h) elected office; i) inside traders; j) press coverage;
k) to harbour political ambitions;
1) to launch a career.
1. What is an attorney in the US? How is he appointed?
2. When does an attorney resign?
3. What does the number of assistant attorneys in federal judicial districts depend on?
4. What makes attorneys so important in American communities?
5. How do attorneys in the US realize their political ambitions?
6. What example in the text proves that US attorneys harbour political ambitions?
7. Work in pairs. Discuss the difference between the American and British lawyers.
8. Put this story in the correct order. The first event has been given.
a they found both men guilty.
b and charged them with the robbery.
c £10,000 was stolen from a bank in the High Street. – 1
d After the jury had listened to all the evidence
e The judge gave the men a prison sentence of five years.
f The trial took place two months later.
g and they finally arrested two men.
h They questioned them at the police station
i The police interviewed a number of witnesses about the crime
9. Fill the gaps with the correct word.
1.A: Have you ever. the law?
2. A: Does anyone know why she. the crime?
B: I think she needed the money.
3. A: Is it legal to ride a motorbike without a license?
4. In Britain it is. to drive a car without insurance.
5. If you drive through a red light, you will have to pay a.
6. The defendant must try to. he or she is innocent.
7. The jury must decide if the defendant is innocent or.
8. Before they reach a decision, the jury must look at the ……………. carefully.
9. If someone is guilty of murder, the. will be at least ten years in prison.
10. He has been in trouble before, but it was only a minor.
10. Read the information below, then answer the questions below, based on your knowledge of the law in your own country.
Two 15-year-old boys broke into a house when the owner was out, and took money and jewellery worth about £900. The owner reported the crime when she got home at 6 pm.
1 Will the police investigate this crime?
2 How will they investigate? What will they do?
3 Do you think the police will catch the two boys?
4 If they do, what crime will they be charged with?
5 Can boys of this age go to prison?
6 What do you think the sentence would be? Do you think this is the correct sentence?
CRIMINAL LAW
1. Is there a clear distinction between civil and criminal procedures in your country?
2. Can you explain what the word «crime» means?
3. Is there any difference between serious and less serious crimes?
Read the text and say again what «crime» is.
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES
Crime is a violation of a law that forbids or commands an activity. Such crimes as murder, rape, arson are on the books of every country. Because crime is a violation of public order, the government prosecutes criminal cases.
Courts decide both criminal and civil cases. Civil cases stem from disputed claims to something of value. Disputes arise from accidents, contractual obligations, and divorce, for example.
Most countries make a rather clear distinction between civil and criminal procedures. For example, an English criminal court may force a defendant to pay a fine as punishment for his crime, and he may sometimes have to pay the legal costs of the prosecution. But the victim of the crime pursues his claim for compensation in a civil, not a criminal, action.
Criminal and civil procedures are different. Although some systems, including the English, allow a private citizen to bring a criminal prosecution against another citizen, criminal actions are nearly always started by the state. Civil actions, on the other hand, are usually started by individuals.
Some courts, such as the English Magistrates Courts and the Japanese Family Court, deal with both civil and criminal matters. Others, such as the English Crown Court, deal exclusively with one or the other.
In Anglo-American law, the party bringing a criminal action (that is, in most cases the state) is called the prosecution, but the party bringing a civil action is the plaintiff. In both kinds of action the other party is known as the defendant. A criminal case against a person called Ms. Brown would be described as «The People vs. (versus, or against) Brown» in the United States and «R. (Regina, that is, the Queen) vs. Brown» in England. But a civil action between Ms. Brown and Mr. Smith would be «Brown vs. Smith» if it was started by Brown, and «Smith vs. Brown» if it was started by Mr. Smith.
Evidence from a criminal trial is not necessarily admissible as evidence in a civil action about the same matter. For example, the victim of a road accident does not directly benefit if the driver who injured him is found guilty of the crime of careless driving. He still has to prove his case in a civil action. In fact he may be able to prove his civil case even when the driver is found not guilty in the criminal trial.
Once the plaintiff has shown that the defendant is liable, the main argument in a civil court is about the amount of money, or damages, which the defendant should pay to the plaintiff.
Vocabulary
violation (n) — нарушение закона
violate (v) — нарушать закон
forbid (v) (forbade; forbidden) — запрещать
rape (n) — изнасилование rapist (n) — насильник
rape (v) — насиловать
arsonist (n) — поджигатель
to set on fire — поджигать
claim (n) (for)— 1. требование, претензия, заявление; 2. иск
claim (v) — 1. требовать (возмещения убытков); 2. заявлять права, подавать иск
claimant (n) — предъявляющий права, истец
distinction (n) — различие
force (v) — заставлять, принуждать
defendant (n) — ответчик, подсудимый, обвиняемый
victim (n) — жертва, пострадавший
pursue (v) — 1. предъявлять иск; 2. преследовать
compensation (n) — возмещение убытков, компенсация
procedure (n) — процедура
allow (v) — позволять, давать возможность
action (n) — судебный процесс, обвинение, иск
plaintiff (n) — истец
road accident — дорожно-транспортное происшествие
injure (v) — причинить вред, ранить
prove (v) — доказать, подтвердить
damage (n) — убыток, ущерб (мн.ч. — компенсация за убытки)
Exercises
1. Tick off the true sentences.
1. Usually courts don’t decide civil cases.
2. In England a defendant can be forced to pay a fine.
3. Civil actions can never be started by individuals.
4. Criminal and civil procedures are considered different in all the сountries.
5. The plaintiff can claim for compensation in Court.
2. Choose the correct alternative in each case to complete the sentence.
1. The English Magistrates’ Courts deal with.
a) civil and criminal cases;
b) most serious crimes;
c) civil cases only
2. The victim of a road accident can get compensation if
a) the driver, who injured him, was drunk;
b) the driver, who injured him, pleads himself guilty;
c) he (the victim) proves his case in a civil action
3. The phrase «The people vs. Smith» means
a) a civil case against a person;
b) a civil or a criminal case against a person;
c) a criminal case against a person
4. The Japanese Family Court deals with
a) divorce proceedings;
b) civil and criminal cases;
c) crimes committed by children under 17.
3. Choose the right verb to complete the sentence.
1. The law forbids/permits/approves any criminal activity.
2. Criminal cases equal to/ differ from/imply civil cases.
3. The victim of a road accident must prove/negotiate/disguise his case in court.
4. Courts must ignore/decide/differentiate criminal and civil cases.
5. An English criminal court can allow/force/offer a defendant to pay fine as a punishment.
4. Give the Russian equivalents to the following words and phrases.
• to violate the law
• to be found guilty of arson
• to make a rather clear distinction, between
• to pay a fine as punishment
• victims of the road accident
• one’s claim for compensation
• «The People vs. Mr. Smith»
• be injured in a road accident
• to force to pay a fine
5. Read the text again and find antonyms for the following words.
to observe similarity to do good
to permit benefit to disapprove
6. Fill in the gaps with words and expressions from the text.
1. He was seriously ___________ in a __________.
2. ______________ is a person who brings an action of law.
3. Every citizen in a democratic country may ________________ the protection of the law.
4. It’s __________ to drive at high speed.
____________ was ___________ by the Court to pay a _________.
Are you going to start ______________ against the company?
He was constantly ___________ by that nightmare.
_____ a private ______ to bring a prosecution against other citizens.
I will _________ to you that the witness is quite unreliable.
7. a) Crime is a problem in most countries, especially in the large cities. Here is a list of some criminals and the crimes they commit, but it is incomplete. Fill in the missing parts. Use a dictionary if necessary.
| Criminal | Crime | The criminal… |
| Thief | robbery/theft | stole some jewellery |
| Murderer | killed the policeman | |
| hijacking | hijacked a plane | |
| Drug dealer Drug pusher | drug dealing | dealt in pushing cocaine |
| kidnapping | ||
| Rapist | ||
| Mugger | mugged an old lady | |
| Car thief | stole BMW | |
| trespass | trespassed on/upon Mr. Brown’s (private) property | |
| robbery | ||
| Terrorist | committed an act of terrorism (e.g. bombing, murder, kidnapping) |
b) Which is the worst kind of crime in your opinion? Why? Discuss in a group.
8. Change the verbs to the Past Simple or the Past Continuous. Then retell the story.
THE UNLUCKY BURGLAR
One evening Alf (watch) the television and (eat) his supper when the door suddenly (open) and a burglar (come) in. He (wear) a mask and (carry) a sack. Before doing anything else he (tie) Alf to the chair. Then he (go) upstairs to look for money. Although he (not find) any money he (find) lot of jewellery, which he (put) into his sack. In his rush to get downstairs he (not see) the dog which (lie) at the bottom of the stairs and he (fall) over it, loosing his glasses. While the burglar (look for) them, Alf (try) to free himself. Finally Alf (manage) to escape and he (phone) the police. As soon as the burglar (find) his glasses he (run) out of the house. However, unfortunately for him, the police (wait) for him at the end of the garden.
Law: basic terms
9. The following terms introduce you to the law and basic legal terminology. Below are the definitions. Find the definition for each term.
authority court govern judge law enforcement agency lawyers legal action legal system legislation rule the judiciary tribunal
1. a body that is appointed to make a judgement or inquiry tribunal
2. a country’s body of judges __________
3. an act or acts passed by a law-making body __________
4. behaviour recognized by a community as binding or enforceable by authority ____________
5. legal proceedings __________
6. an official body that has authority to try criminals, resolve disputes, or make other legal decisions __________
7. an organization responsible for enforcing the law, especially the police _________
8. a senior official in a court of law __________
9. the body or system of rules recognized by a community that are enforceable by established process _______________
10. the control resulting from following a community’s system of rules _________
11. members of the legal profession ______________
12. to rule a society and control the behaviour of its members _______________
Lawyer is a wide term which refers to all professionals working in the legal profession; it does not refer to a specific job.
Law: basic concepts
10. Complete the following text about basic legal concepts using the following words and phrases. Use each term once.
authority court govern judges
law enforcement agency lawyers legal action legal eystems legislation rule the judiciary tribunal
Nouns in English can be divided into countable and uncountable. Countable nouns have a singular and a plural form; uncountable nouns have only one form. Law is a countable noun; legislationis an uncountable noun.