English to Romanian Texts.

1. The O.J. Simpson trial, source:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/04/nuremberg-a-fair-trial-a-
dangerous-precedent/306492/

On the night of June 12, 1994, Simpson’s ex-wife and Goldman were stabbed to death outside
her condominium in Los Angeles, and Simpson quickly became the prime suspect. Rather than
surrender to police after being notified of impending charges, on June 17 Simpson hid in the
back of a sport-utility vehicle driven by his friend A.C. Cowlings. After being told that Simpson
had a gun to his own head, law-enforcement officers followed the vehicle at low speeds for more
than an hour. The attempted “escape” was televised live nationally—seen by an estimated 95
million viewers—and hundreds of Simpson’s fans lined the streets in support of him. It ended at
Simpson’s home in Brentwood, California, where he was placed under arrest and taken into
police custody. Simpson was formally arraigned on July 22, 1994, entering a plea of not guilty.
The trial began on January 24, 1995, with Lance Ito as the presiding judge. The Los Angeles
district attorney’s office, led by Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, emphasized the domestic
violence that had occurred prior to and after the Simpsons’ 1992 divorce as a motive for the
murders. The attorneys representing Simpson, known as the “Dream Team,” included F. Lee
Bailey, Robert Blasier, Shawn Chapman Holley, Robert Shapiro, and Alan Dershowitz; Johnnie
Cochran later became the defense team’s lead attorney. The Simpson defense was based largely
on the grounds that evidence had been mishandled and that many members of the Los Angeles
police department were racist, particularly Mark Fuhrman, a detective who allegedly found a
bloody leather glove at Simpson’s home. The defense team argued that the glove could not have
been Simpson’s, because it appeared too small for his hand when he tried it on in the courtroom.
In addition to the glove, the defense claimed that other important evidence had been planted by
the police to frame Simpson. During the trial, which lasted more than eight months, some 150
witnesses testified, though Simpson did not take the stand. Many cable television networks
devoted long stretches of time to speculation about the case and to public opinion of it. Belief in
Simpson’s innocence or guilt was divided largely along racial lines, with a majority of African
Americans in support of Simpson and most white Americans believing in his guilt. Millions
watched the television proceedings of the trial throughout the day, and the major figures
involved in the case became instant celebrities. On October 2, 1995, the jury finally began
deliberating and reached a verdict in less than four hours. Ito, however, delayed the
announcement until the following day. On October 3 Simpson was found not guilty of the
murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. After the verdict, polls of public
opinion continued to break down along racial lines. Whites were largely dismayed by the jury’s
decision, whereas the majority of African Americans supported it, seeing Simpson’s acquittal as
a victory in a legal system that systematically discriminated against blacks. Although Simpson
was acquitted in the criminal case, he was also sued by the victims’ families for wrongful death,
and the civil trial began in October 1996. Less than four months later, that jury found him
responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman and awarded their
families $33.5 million in damages.
2. The Trial by Franz Kafka.

The painter had pulled his seat closer to the bed and continued in a subdued voice: “I
forgot to ask you; what sort of acquittal is it you want? There are three possibilities;
absolute acquittal, apparent acquittal and deferment. Absolute acquittal is the best, of
course, only there’s nothing I could do to get that sort of outcome. I don’t think there’s
anyone at all who could do anything to get an absolute acquittal. Probably the only thing
that could do that is if the accused is innocent. As you are innocent it could actually be
possible and you could depend on your innocence alone. In that case you won’t need me
or any other kind of help.” At first, K. was astonished at this orderly explanation, but
then, just as quietly as the painter, he said, “I think you’re contradicting yourself.”
“How’s that?” asked the painter patiently, leaning back with a smile. This smile made K.
feel as if he were examining not the words of the painter but seeking out inconsistencies
in the procedures of the court itself. Nonetheless, he continued unabashed and said, “You
remarked earlier that the court cannot be approached with reasoned proofs, you later
restricted this to the open court, and now you go so far as to say that an innocent man
needs no assistance in court. That entails a contradiction. Moreover, you said earlier that
the judges can be influenced personally but now you insist that an absolute acquittal, as
you call it, can never be attained through personal influence. That entails a second
contradiction.” “It’s quite easy to clear up these contradictions,” said the painter. “We’re
talking about two different things here, there’s what it says in the law and there’s what I
know from my own experience, you shouldn’t get the two confused. I’ve never seen it in
writing, but the law does, of course, say on the one hand that the innocent will be set free,
but on the other hand it doesn’t say that the judges can be influenced. But in my
experience it’s the other way round. I don’t know of any absolute acquittals but I do
know of many times when a judge has been influenced. It’s possible, of course, that there
was no innocence in any of the cases I know about. But is that likely? Not a single
innocent defendant in so many cases? When I was a boy I used to listen closely to my
father when he told us about court cases at home, and the judges that came to his studio
talked about the court, in our circles nobody talks about anything else; I hardly ever got
the chance to go to court myself but always made use of it when I could, I’ve listened to
countless trials at important stages in their development, I’ve followed them closely as far
as they could be followed, and I have to say that I’ve never seen a single acquittal.” “So.
Not a single acquittal,” said K., as if talking to himself and his hopes. “That confirms the
impression I already have of the court. So there’s no point in it from this side either. They
could replace the whole court with a single hangman.” “You shouldn’t generalise,” said
the painter, dissatisfied, “I’ve only been talking about my own experience.” “Well that’s
enough,” said K., “or have you heard of any acquittals that happened earlier?” “They say
184 The Trial there have been some acquittals earlier,” the painter answered, “but it’s
very hard to be sure about it. The courts don’t make their final conclusions public, not
even the judges are allowed to know about them, so that all we know about these earlier
cases are just legends.
 3. The Tools of Argument: How the Best Lawyers Think, Argue, and Win by Joel P.
Trachtman
It’s great to be persuasive when you’re right. It’s great to be able to resist sophistry when your
opponent is wrong. It is a guilty pleasure to be persuasive when you are wrong. Lawyers are the
modern heirs of the ancient Greek sophists, the worst of whom sought to “make the weaker
argument appear the stronger.” The first way to define strength in this context is by how well you
persuade your audience. If, however, a strong argument, as defined here, were one that convinces
others of your position, then it would be impossible to make the weaker argument appear
stronger. By “appearing” stronger, it would be stronger. Therefore, we need a different definition
of strength than mere persuasiveness. The true stronger argument is the argument that meets
some objective test of strength, and that should win. But, you might ask, where does this
objective test come from? Is it based on first principles, justice, or truth? Unfortunately, as
culturally-biased human beings, we often disagree about first principles, justice, and truth. A
more practical version of this second definition would deem stronger the argument that is more
substantively appealing—the one that resounds more greatly in logic and policy. By making the
weaker argument in this sense appear the stronger, lawyers or other sophists may subvert first
principles, truth, or public policy. In order to make the weaker argument appear the stronger,
they might be required to present arguments falsely. Sophistry is thus ethically unappealing.
Lawyers are trained to think in terms of legal right and legal wrong (which is one of the things
that people find objectionable about them). If the law says you are responsible for a problem,
then for the lawyer, that’s the end of the discussion. But in a more nuanced social and relational
setting, things are not always so black and white, and the legal system can ignore important
shadings of right and wrong. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes decisions must be
made, even if they are imperfect and even if there is a degree of right on both sides. However, it
is good to remember that there is significant nuance. Sometimes it is also politic to recognize the
values that motivated the losing claim and even to compromise when you would otherwise win
in formal dispute settlement procedure. Legal practice is, to a great extent, ethically ambivalent.
Lawyers pledge to represent their clients zealously, and so they are charged, where their client is
wrong, with trying to make the weaker argument appear the stronger. Yet, they also see
themselves as officers of the court, or agents of the state, and in that role they should seek to
enforce the law as intended and must act honestly. This book is not intended to school sophists.
But it does include a taxonomy of the tools of sophistry so that they can be identified and
countered. While it is far beyond the ambit of this book to postulate a set of objective criteria or a
set of first principles for use in judging arguments, it is within its scope to promote truth in
argument. In the U.S., we like to think that our system of legal advocacy is a crucible that forges
accurate application of law. In a broader social setting, you might acknowledge that competent
and honest argument over the application of rules, principles, and policy will allow fair decisions
to prevail. Understanding the tools of argument will allow you to be more persuasive, to counter
the arguments of opponents, and to make decisions when you are the target of persuasive
arguments. The best tools of argument are also tools of thinking and will enable us to persuade
the most important decision-makers—ourselves—as to what is right
Romanian to English texts:
1.