|
|
发表于 2011-11-5 19:14:49
|
显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 unicorn 于 2011-11-5 19:16 编辑
我来试试当补锅匠。
The instruction to the jury in this trial will include the following language:
本案中陪审团将被告知以下几点:
An act (or failure to perform a legal duty) causes death if the death is a direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act (or failure to perform a legal duty) and the death would not have happened without the act (or failure to perform a legal duty).
如果从一种行为（或未履行法定义务的不作为）能直接、顺理成章并令人信服的推出（迈克）死亡的结果，并且无此行为即无死亡结果的话，（我们就可以得出这一结论）这一行为（或未履行法定义务的不作为）导致了（迈克）的死亡。
A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes.
一个顺理成章并令人信服的结论是：一个理性的人能够预见，假如没有小概率事件的介入，那么就是这一行为（或未履行法定义务的不作为）导致了（迈克）的死亡。
It's important to know that there may be more than one cause of death. An act causes death only if it is a substantial factor in causing the death. A substantial factor is more than a trivial or remote factor. However, it does not need to be the only factor that causes the death.
意识到导致死亡的原因可能不止一个，这很重要。（但）要成为前文所述之原因，它必须（与死亡结果）有本质上的联系。这个原因不能鸡零狗碎，或干脆就不靠谱。当然，这并不意味着要求这一原因完全排他。
A special instruction to the jury, which the prosecution drafted, is expected to be read following the definition of causation. We do not have the exact language, but it deals with whether an intervening act could have been foreseen. If the intervening act (Jackson self-administering propofol) was foreseeable, then Murray can still be found guilty.
要特别向陪审团说明的是，人们希望控方的指控能符合（刑法意义上）因果关系的定义。我们没有对本案的因果关系在理论上进行精准阐述，但考虑到了本案出现其他行为介入时莫里的行为与死亡之间是否有因果联系。即使有其他行为介入（杰克逊自己注射了异丙酚），莫里依然有罪。
什么是过失犯罪？
The jury instruction will include the following language:
陪审团将被告知以下几点: |
|
好想好想好想好想好想你
狗仔卡
楼主
显身卡
发表于 2011-11-5 11:22:30
发表于 2011-11-5 12:49:05
