更新日期：2012-06-13浏览次数：2769次所属教程：看电影学英语
听力原文
第一页：片段欣赏
第二页：巧学口语
第三页：小小翻译家
第四页：文化一瞥
片段对白：
Nicholas Baker: There he is. Fred.
Frederick Aiken: Hey.
Nicholas Baker: Hamilton here has offered to be your second chair.
Frederick Aiken: Oh. Re...
Hamilton: Not a chance in hell.
Nicholas Baker: No? You sure?
Hamilton: Oh, yeah. I'll carry his briefcase, but I'm not...
Frederick Aiken: Sarah.
Sarah: Fred.
Frederick Aiken: Why are you here?
Sarah: I'm trying to understand why you're here. I suppose I should wish you luck.
General Hunter: Come to order.
Mary Surratt: How is Anna, Mr. Aiken?
Frederick Aiken: She's fine... looking forward to when you come home.
Mary Surratt: That's very nice of you to say, Mr. Aiken.
General Hunter: Judge Advocate Holt, will you please proceed?
Joseph Holt: In the matter of Mary Surratt, the prosecution calls as its first witness Mr. Louis Weichmann.
Frederick Aiken: I thought he was like family. Why are they calling him?
Joseph Holt: Place your right hand on this Bible.
Mary Surratt: I don't know.
Joseph Holt: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Louis Weichmann: I do.
Joseph Holt: Please. Are you acquainted with the defendant, Mary Surratt?
Louis Weichmann: Yes. Yes, I am. I attended Divinity College with her son John.
Joseph Holt: And until recently, you resided at the boarding house owned by Mary Surratt. Is that correct?
Louis Weichmann: That is correct, sir.
Joseph Holt: Were any of these men ever present in her home?
Louis Weichmann: Yes, sir. These three over there on several occasions.
Joseph Holt: Let the record reflect that the witness has identified the prisoners Herold, Payne and Atzerodt. And who invited these men?
Louis Weichmann: John Surratt.
Frederick Aiken: Objection.
Joseph Holt: Objection?
Frederick Aiken: Uh, uh...There's no way to prove that John Surratt even knew these men, let alone invited them.
Joseph Holt: Mr. Surratt's absence from this proceeding is Mr. Surratt's problem.
General Hunter: Objection overruled. Continue, Mr. Holt.
Joseph Holt: Was John Wilkes Booth also a frequent guest of John Surratt?
Louis Weichmann: Indeed, but all the Surratts adored him...John, his sister Anna and their mother, too.
Joseph Holt: And were there ever meetings held at the boarding house involving Mr. Booth?
Louis Weichmann: Many, sometimes lasting two, three hours and always in secret, behind closed doors.
Joseph Holt: And did you ever see Mary Surratt object to these, uh, meetings?
Louis Weichmann: No, sir.
Joseph Holt: Or to the presence of those men?
Louis Weichmann: No, she did not.
Joseph Holt: Thank you.
Louis Weichmann: She appeared to welcome them.
Joseph Holt: Thank you. That'll be all, Mr. Weichmann.
Frederick Aiken: How long did you say these secret meetings lasted?
Louis Weichmann: At least two, three hours.
Frederick Aiken: You were timing them? Eh, if you were timing them, I suppose these secret meetings were not, in fact, kept secret from you.
Louis Weichmann: I knew about them, sir, but I had no knowledge of what they were about.
Frederick Aiken: And that is because you never attended any yourself, correct?
Louis Weichmann: Exactly.
Frederick Aiken: Why was that?
Louis Weichmann: I thought them suspicious.
Frederick Aiken: Suspicious? Well, then, you see, you did know what they were about.
Louis Weichmann: No, sir, I did not.
Frederick Aiken: Then why were your suspicions aroused?
Louis Weichmann: By the snatches of rebel conversation I overheard in the hallways and by their frequent whisperings.
Frederick Aiken: Well, in that case, if it was of such great concern to you, why did you not report your suspicions to your superiors at the War Department?
Louis Weichmann: I did.
Frederick Aiken: Excuse me?
Louis Weichmann: I did reveal my suspicions. I made a confidant of Captain Gleason in the War Department.
General Hunter: Mr. Aiken, if there's nothing else... Counselor, will that be all?
Frederick Aiken: Uh, yes. Uh, no. No. No, I do have something else. Tell me, Mr. Weichmann. Tell us all. You ever been in Richmond?
Joseph Holt: Objection.
Frederick Aiken: I merely wish to know if the witness has ever visited the capital of the Confederacy.
Louis Weichmann: I don't recall.
Frederick Aiken: Then perhaps this train receipt will refresh your memory. It indicates passage to Richmond, and it has your initials on it.
Louis Weichmann: Yes. That's right. I considered continuing my divinity studies there after the war. I plan on becoming a priest.
Frederick Aiken: That's very nice. Do you recall, Mr. Weichmann, at which institute in Richmond you were thinking of enrolling?
Louis Weichmann: The name?
Frederick Aiken: Yes, Mr. Weichmann, the name.
Louis Weichmann: Well, uh...
Frederick Aiken: There is no academy of the kind...
Joseph Holt: Objection.
Frederick Aiken: ...In Richmond, is there, Mr. Weichmann? In fact, perhaps you visited Richmond...
Joseph Holt: Objection, General.
Frederick Aiken: ...For another purpose entirely.
General Hunter: Objection sustained.
Frederick Aiken: You worked for the general in charge of rebel prisoners, did you not?
Louis Weichmann: Yes. So?
Frederick Aiken: Perhaps a distinguished clerk like yourself knew certain information.
Louis Weichmann: What sort of information?
Frederick Aiken: Information that might have been of divine interest to certain rebels within the capital of the Confederacy.
Joseph Holt: Objection, General. The witness is not on trial here.
Lewis Payne: Well, he ought to be!
General Hunter: Objection sustained. The witness is not on trial.
Frederick Aiken: Sir, I am merely trying to establish the witness' credibility or rather the lack of credibility of this man.
General Hunter: Mr. Aiken, you are incriminating the witness.
Frederick Aiken: Incriminating? Sir, Louis Weichmann shared a room with John Surratt. I have a ticket that puts him in Richmond. I think it reasonable to assume that he knows more about this plot to assassinate our president than he supposedly reported.
Joseph Holt: What Mr. Aiken thinks is entirely immaterial.
General Hunter: Counselor, unless you have something more relevant to ask, the witness will step down.
Frederick Aiken: No. No, I have nothing more...relevant to ask.
[page]
第一页：片段欣赏
第二页：巧学口语
第三页：小小翻译家
第四页：文化一瞥
1. let alone: 更不用说，更别提。
2. Objection overruled: 抗议无效/反对无效。
3. time: 记录……的时间。
4. snatch: 片段。请看例句：We heard snatches of their conversation as they raised their voices from time to time.（当他们不时地提高嗓门说话时，我们听到了他们谈话的片段。）
5. of great concern: 非常重要。看一下例句：It's a matter of great concern.（这件事至关重要。）
6. Objection sustained: 抗议有效/反对有效。
7. incriminate: 暗示（或显示）……有罪。
8. immaterial: 无关紧要的。
9. step down: 退下。
[page]
第一页：片段欣赏
第二页：巧学口语
第三页：小小翻译家
第四页：文化一瞥
 |
1. 飞机定于八点抵达。
_____________________________
2. 我无意中听到他们断断续续的谈话内容。
_____________________________
3. 他得以逃跑似乎与那个男孩有牵连。
_____________________________
4. 对我来说那根本无足轻重。
_____________________________
[page]
第一页：片段欣赏
第二页：巧学口语
第三页：小小翻译家
第四页：文化一瞥
美国联邦法院审判程序
在美国联邦法院审理的大多数案件中，律师和法官同意在开庭前开审前会议，确定哪些问题存在争议必须由陪审团来判定，哪些问题不存在争议。双方展示他们要传唤的证人和审判过程中要提供的证据，但是，双方审判前在这些问题上达成一致并不意味着他们同意案件应当如何判决。相反，法官召开庭前会议是为了避免开庭时在这些事先可以决定的问题上浪费时间。
在庭前预审程序过程中，律师会通过查看对方材料，询问了解案件事实的人来尽可能多地了解对方情况。如果律师完成了案件的全部准备工作，审判过程中，无论对方律师提供的证人怎么回答他的提问，他都不会感到意外。庭审律师的一项基本原则就是“如果你不知道回答将是什么，不要提问”。每一方的律师和证人都会通过复查他们的问题及可能得到的回答来为审判作准备。
在民事案件中，经常会发生双方当事人通过庭前预审得出结论和解案件，无需再进入审判程序。和解并不意味着双方就争议达成一致，他们仅仅是同意庭外协商。通常这意味着原告已经同意接受赔偿，当然数量会比原告原来起诉要求的要少。
一个好的辩护律师在刑事案件审判前，会通过会见证人，勘察犯罪现场，检查物证等方式进行深入调查。调查的重要内容就是判断政府拟用来证明案件的证据是否合法取得。宪法第四修正案禁止不合理的搜查和抓捕。为了强调这种保护，最高法院裁定非法获得的证据不得在审判中使用。例如，如果警察没有搜查令便从被告人处提取了证据，被告人的律师就可以要求法庭审判时排除对该证据的使用。法庭将会举行一次听证来决定在当时情形下搜查是否是不合理的。如果法庭裁决关键证据非法获取因而不能使用，政府就会输掉指控。如果政府公诉的证据确凿，并且法庭裁定证据的取得合法，被告人可能会决定认罪而不是进入庭审程序。
如果当事人选择了陪审团审判，就开始陪审员的选择。公民被选为陪审团成员并须完成整个审判程序始于国会通过的法律并被联邦法院作为规则采用。首先，公民被召到法庭以便于为陪审团服务。这些公民是从该地区注册登记的所有选民名单中随意选取的，或从有驾照的人名单中随意选取的，或者从二者的名单中随意选取的。在个案中法官和律师可以从实际为陪审团服务的人员中选取。
为选取陪审员，法官(有时是律师)会询问候选陪审员一些问题以决定他们能否公正判决案件。这个程序叫做预先甄别陪审员。律师可以要求法官排除他们认为可能会不公正的陪审员，例如那些认识案件一方当事人或有某种经历可能会导致其倾向一方当事人的陪审员。律师可以不说任何正当理由拒绝一定数量的陪审员。
一旦陪审团选定，双方当事人的律师将会开始首轮陈词。首轮陈词的目的是为了让各方当事人陈述他们对提供的证据的看法。
首轮陈词后开始提出证据。首先，由政府或原告的律师，询问其提供的证人。律师询问他们叫到法庭来作证的证人，叫做直接询问。在政府或原告的律师直接询问后，被告律师可以向证人发问，这叫交叉询问。如果交叉询问后，原告律师想问其它问题，可以再次进行直接询问，然后被告律师获得再一次交叉询问的机会。所有原告提供的证人询问完毕后，辩方会让其证人出庭，重复以上程序。
律师通常会提交例如银行记录等文件材料，或提交例如枪支等证物，作为补充证据，这个程序称为证据展示。
法院已建立了庭审规则以查明事实。例如，最高法院规定如果被告人在法庭外受胁迫而招供，那么在审判中这种招供不能作为被告人有罪的证据。法院适用这一规则是因为被迫招供显而易见是不可信的。
为了鼓励被告纠正可能造成他人伤害的错误情形，联邦法院规定禁止将这类有可能被看作被告人自认有罪的纠正行为作为证据在法庭上提供。适用这一规则的目的是为了避免其他人继原告之后受到相同的伤害。按照这一规则，因在湿滑的人行道上摔倒而受伤的原告的律师，在原告事故之后不能提出让被告再建一个湿滑的场景来作为证据。如果没有这一规则，被告建这样一个场景很可能会被理解为被告承认在原告出现事故时这种场合就已存在，而被告负有就此危险情形向原告发出警告的义务，这样类推判断会危及被告打赢官司。
证据采信的另一规则是禁止使用二手证言，即传闻。根据这一规则，证人不可以作证说他从其他人那儿听到什么。例如，如果约翰史密斯作证说“比尔琼斯告诉我他看见富兰克威廉姆抢劫了绿峡谷银行”，这样的证言就属于不能采用的证据。法院认为传闻通常不是非常可靠的，因此，不能在审判中作为证据来使用。
有时律师会不经意地或故意地违反这一规则，试图将一些不允许使用的证据提供给陪审团。如果对方律师认为被告或证人将要回答或已回答的证言是不当的，可以就此提出反对，并要求法官制止证人回答问题，要求法官或告知陪审团不得理会证人已作出的回答。法官可以认可反对有效，并按反对方律师的意见去做，或驳回反对，认定证言有效。反对提出后，由法官独自认定证据是否可采用。
法官和双方当事人的律师经常在法官席旁边用陪审团听不到但法庭记录员能记录的声音进行协商，有时可能在法官的办公室协商。他们经常讨论某一份证据是否可采用。法庭不希望陪审员听到这种讨论，因为他们可能听到一些不能被采用的证据从而形成有利于某一方的偏见。
在证据出示完毕后，双方的律师向陪审团作结束陈词，包括对案件的描述。跟首轮陈词一样，结束陈词不需要提供证据，但要归纳案件各方的一些重要特征。结束陈词后，法官会给陪审团指导，解释相关的法律及正在审判的案件应当如何适用法律，陪审团必须就哪些问题作出裁决，然后陪审团回到陪审团房间讨论证据并裁决。在刑事案件中，陪审团的裁决必须完全一致。在民事案件中，裁决也必须是一致的，除非双方当事人在开庭审判前同意接受不一致的裁决。
通过参加陪审团，公民获得了一次直接参与政府工作的独特机遇。为了鼓励公民参加陪审团，法院尽可能地使陪审团工作得舒适并获得报酬。
在联邦刑事案件中，如果陪审团(没有陪审团时为法官)认定被告有罪，法官将会择日宣判。在联邦法院，由法官而不是陪审团来决定处罚。但法官的判决受制于国会通过的有关判决的法律和一套强制性的判决指南。指南考虑个案的属性和被告人的犯罪记录。法院的工作人员会给法官准备一份判前报告，这份报告有助于法官按照应适用的规则作出恰当的判决。
在民事案件中，如果陪审团(或法官)决定支持原告请求，通常会判决被告向原告支付赔偿金或采取一些能恢复原告权利的特殊措施。如果被告胜诉，法庭就无需再做什么了。