题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
简答题官方参考答案
（由简答题聘请的专业题库老师提供的解答）
抱歉！暂无答案，正在努力更新中……
更多“Trial manuals almost universally recommend avoiding excessively formal or legalistic speech in summa…”相关的问题
"It's almost eight o'clock." As if______ the bell in the church began to toll for Matins.
A．on trial
B．on view
C．on cue
D．on sale
The do-it -yourself shop is a curious establishment. In it you can find anything from the tiniest screw to a self-assembly greenhouse. There is paint, glue, oil and wire for all purposes. There are tiles, selves, carpets and pipes of all shapes and sizes. You can even buy a complete bathroom suite in the larger self-service stores.
Today there is much more leisure time and, in many cases, much less money available. Do-it-yourself has become a money-saving hobby. It is no wonder that fewer tradesmen make a living from private homes. Pipes can be joined together by pushing, paint that can be rolled on doesn't drip, and holes can be drilled at the press of a button. Anyone can do it! Well, almost!
Why does the writer suggest that you should do the work yourself？.
A．You could save money.
B．There are many books magazines and manuals on the subject.
C．It is easy to find the right tools and materials nowadays..
D．All the reasons mentioned above.
"The dispute over the spying case has for the moment been diffused. Jose Imperatori says he's ended his hunger strike. As he left Canada, the Cuban government issued a statement saying that a reasonable and satisfactory solution had been reached. It said the diplomat would have maximum possibilities of returning to the Unites States to defend himself. Almost certainly he acted as a witness in the trial of Mariano Faget, the INS official facing spy charges."
A Cuban diplomat was deported from the United States last weekend for ______.
A．alleged espionage
B．greeting Fidel Castro
C．boarding a plane to Havana
D．bombing the embassy
System of Criminal Trial
How efficient is our system of criminal trial？ Does it really do the basic job we ask of it— convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent？ It is often said that the British trail system is more like a game than a serious attempt to do justice. The lawyers on each side are so en- grossed in playing hard to win, challenging each other and the judge on technical points, that the object of finding out the truth is almost forgotten. All the effort is concentrated on the big day, on the dramatic cross examination of the key witnesses in front of the jury. Critics like to compare our "adversarial" system (resembling two adversaries engaged in a contest) with the continental "inquisitorial" system, under which the judge plays a more important inquiring role.
In early times, in the Middle Ages, the systems of trial across Europe were similar. At that time trial by "ordeal"—especially a religious event—was the main way of testing guilt or innocence. When this way eventually abandoned the two systems parted company. On the continent church-trained legal officials took over the function of both prosecuting and judging, while in England these were largely left to lay people, the Justice of the Peace and this meant that all the evidence had to be put to them orally, this historical accident dominates procedure even today, with all evidence being given in open court by word of mouth on the crucial day.
On the other hand, in France for instance, all the evidence is written before the trial under supervision by an investigating judge. This exhaustive pretrial looks very undramatic; much of it is just a public checking of the written records already gathered.
The Americans adopted the British system lock, stock and barrel and enshrined it in their constitution. But, while the basic features of our systems are common, there are now significant differences in the way serious cases are handled. First, because the U. S.A. has virtually no contempt of court laws to prevent pretrial publicity in the newspaper and on television, Americans lawyers are allowed to question jurors about knowledge and beliefs.
In Britain this is virtually never allowed, and a random selection of jurors who are presumed not to be prejudiced are empanelled. Secondly, there is no separate profession of barrister in the United States, and both prosecution and defense lawyers who are to present cases in court prepare them themselves. They go out and visit the scene, track down and interview witnesses, and familiarize themselves personally with the background. In Britain it is the solicitor who prepares the case, and the barrister who appears in court is not even slowed to meet witness beforehand. British barristers also alternate doing both prosecution and defense work. Being kept distant from the preparation and regularly appearing for both sides, barristers are said to avoid becoming too personally involved, and can approach cases more dispassionately. American lawyers, however, often know their cases better.
Reformers rightly want to learn from other countries' mistakes and successes. But what is clear is that justice systems, largely because they are the result of long historical growth, are peculiarly difficult to adapt piecemeal.
"British trial system is more like a game than a serious attempt to do justice. " It implies that______.
A．the British legal system can do the basic job well—convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent
B．the British legal system is worse than the continental legal system
C．the British legal system is often considered to be not very fair
D．the British legal system is very efficient
In early times, in the Middle Ages, the systems of trial across Europe were similar. At that time trial by "ordeal"— essentially a religious event—was the main way of testing guilt or innocence. When this was eventually abandoned, the two systems parted company. On the Continent, church-trained legal officials took over the function of both prosecuting and judging, while in England these were largely left to lay people, the Justice of the Peace and the jury. The jurymen were often illiterate and this meant that all the evidence had to be put to them orally. This historical accident dominates procedure even today, with all evidence being given in open court by word of mouth on the crucial day.
On the other hand, in France for instance, all the evidence is written before the trial under supervision by an investigating judge. This exhaustive pretrial looks very undramatic; much of it is just a public checking of the written records already gathered.
The Americans adopted the British system lock, stock and barrel and enshrined it in their Constitution. But, while the basic features of our systems are common, there are now significant differences in the way serious cases are handled. First, because the U. S. A. has virtually no contempt of court laws to prevent pretrial publicity in the newspaper and on television, American lawyers are allowed to question jurors about knowledge and beliefs.
In Britain this is virtually never allowed, and a random selection of jurors who are presumed not to be prejudiced are empanelled. Secondly, there is no separate profession of barrister in the United States, and both prosecution and defense lawyers who are to present cases in court prepare them themselves. They go out and visit the scene, track down and interview witnesses, and familiarize themselves personally with the background. In Britain it is the solicitor who prepares the case; the barrister who appears in court is not even allowed lo meet witness beforehand. British barristers also alternate doing both prosecution and defense work. By being kept distant from the preparation and regularly appearing for both sides, barristers are said to avoid becoming too personally involved, and can approach cases more dispassionately. American lawyers, however, often know their cases better.
Reformers rightly want to learn from other countries' mistakes and successes. But what is clear is that justice systems, largely because they are the result of long historical growth, are peculiarly difficult to adapt piecemeal.
"The British trial system is more like a game than a serious attempt to do justice," implies that ______.
A．the British legal system can de the basic job well—convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent
B．the British legal system is worse than the Continental legal system
C．the British legal system is often considered to be not very fair
D．the British legal system is very efficient
One suggestion that has been made in order to maximize the efficiency of the system is to allow districts that have an overabundance of pending cases to borrow judges from other districts that do not have such a workload. Another suggestion is to use pretrial conferences, in which the judge meets in his chambers with the litigants and their lawyers in order to narrow the issues, limit the witnesses, and provide for a more orderly trial. The theory behind pretrial conferences is that judges will spend less time on each case and parties will more readily settle before trial when they realize the adequacy of their claims and their opponents' evidence. Unfortunately, at least one study has shown that pretrial conferences actually use more judicial time than they save, rarely result in pretrial settlements, and actually result in higher damage settlements.
Many states have now established another method, small-claims courts, in which cases over small sums of money can be disposed of with considerable dispatch. Such proceedings cost the litigants almost nothing. In California, for example, the parties must appear before the judge without the assistance of counsel. The proceedings are quite informal and there is no pleading--the litigants need to make only a one-sentence statement of their claim. By going to this type of court, the plaintiff(原告) gives up any right to a jury trial and the right to appeal the decision.
In coming years, we can expect to see more and more innovations in the continuing effort to correct a situation which must be corrected if the citizens who have valid claims are going to be able to have their day in court.
The pretrial conference, in theory, is supposed to do all of the following EXCEPT ______.
A．narrow the issues
B．cause early settlements
C．save judicial time
D．increase settlement costs
One suggestion that has been made in order to maximize the efficiency of the system is to allow districts that have an overabundance of pending cases to borrow judges from other districts that do not have such a backlog. Another suggestion is to use pretrial conferences, in which the judge meets in his chambers with the litigants and their attorneys in order to narrow the issues, limit the witnesses, and provide for a more orderly trial. The theory behind pretrial conferences is that judges will spend leas time on each case and parties will more readily settle before trial when they realize the adequacy of their claims and their opponents' evidence. Unfortunately, at least one study has shown that pretrial conferences actually use more judicial time than they save, rarely result in pretrial settlements, and actually result in higher damage settlements.
Many states have now established another method, small-claims courts, in which cases over small sums of money can be disposed of with considerable dispatch. Such proceedings cost the litigants almost nothing. In California, for example, the parties must appear before the judge without the assistance of counsel. The proceedings are quite informal and there is no pleading—the litigants need to make only a one-sentence statement of their claim. By going to this type of court, the plaintiff waives any right to a jury trial and the right to appeal the decision.
In coming years, we can expect to see more and more innovations in the continuing effort to remedy a situation which must be remedied if the citizens who have valid claims are going to be able to have their day in court.
The pretrial conference, in theory, is supposed to do all of the following EXCEPT ______.
A．narrow the issues
B．cause early settlements
C．save judicial time
D．increase settlement costs
In early times, in the Middle Ages, the systems of trial across Europe were similar. At that time trial by "ordeal" — especially a religious event — was the main way of testing guilt or innocence. When this way eventually abandoned the two systems parted company. On the continent church-trained legal officials took over the function of both prosecuting and judging, while in England these were largely left to lay people, the Justice of the Peace and the jurymen who were illiterate and this meant that all the evidence had to be put to them orally. This historical accident dominates procedure even today, with all evidence being given in open court by word of mouth on the crucial day.
On the other hand, in France for instance, all the evidence is written before the trial under supervision by an investigating judge. This exhaustive pretrial looks very undramatic; much of its is just a public checking of the written records already gathered.
The Americans adopted the British system lock, stock and barrel and enshrined it in their constitution. But, while the basic features of our systems are common, there are now significant differences in the way serious cases are handled. First, because the USA has virtually no contempt of court laws to prevent pretrial publicity in the newspaper and on television, Americans lawyers are allowed to question jurors about knowledge and beliefs.
In Britain this is virtually never allowed, and a random selection of jurors who are presumed not to be prejudiced are empanelled. Secondly, there is no separate profession of barrister in the United States, and both prosecution and defense lawyers who are to present cases in court prepare themselves. They go out and visit the scene, track down and interview witnesses, and familiarize themselves personally with the background. In Britain it is the solicitor who prepares the case, and the barrister who appears in court is not even allowed to meet witnesses beforehand. British barristers also alternate doing both prosecution and defense work. Being kept distant from the preparation and regularly appearing for both sides, barristers are said to avoid becoming too personally involved, and can approach cases more dispassionately. American lawyers, however, often know their cases better.
Reformers rightly want to learn from other countries' mistakes and successes. But what is clear is that justice systems, largely because they are the result of long historical growth, are peculiarly difficult to adapt piecemeal.
"The British trial system is more like a game than a serious attempt to do justice" (Lines 2～3, Para- graph 1) implies that ______.
A．the British legal system can do the basic job well — convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent
B．the British legal system is worse than the continental legal system
C．the British legal system is often considered to be not very fair
D．tbe British legal system is very efficient
警告：系统检测到您的账号存在安全风险
为了保护您的账号安全，请在“简答题”公众号进行验证，点击“官网服务”-“账号验证”后输入验证码“”完成验证，验证成功后方可继续查看答案！
