Phrasing A. Complete the text by using one word to fill in each blank. The trial of Stan Pemberton, 32, at Barkingham
Phrasing A. Complete the text by using one word to fill in each blank. The trial of Stan Pemberton, 32, at Barkingham Crown court, came to an end today. Pemberton, who had been charged with a crime, was acquitted of all charges. After the testimony of an expert witness, the judge dismissed the twelve members of the jury and informed the solicitor that Pemberton was free to leave. Outside the court, Pemberton made a statement. ‘Stan Pemberton has always maintained his innocence and that was the decision of the court. There was no proof that my client was involved in
Зарина 69
in any wrongdoing," said Pemberton"s defense lawyer. The trial lasted for several weeks, during which the prosecution presented various pieces of evidence against Pemberton. However, the defense was able to undermine the credibility of the prosecution"s witnesses through cross-examination and by presenting their own evidence. The expert witness called by the defense provided expert analysis of the evidence, which further cast doubt on Pemberton"s involvement in the alleged crime. The judge carefully considered the evidence presented by both sides before reaching the verdict. In his closing statement, the judge emphasized the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the prosecution. He highlighted the importance of considering all the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt when reaching a verdict. The jury, after careful deliberation, unanimously decided that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove Pemberton"s guilt. Therefore, he was acquitted of all charges. The judge"s decision to dismiss the jury was a customary procedure after the trial concludes. Stan Pemberton, relieved and exonerated, expressed gratitude towards his legal team and maintained that justice prevailed in the courtroom. The verdict serves as a reminder of the fundamental principle of justice, which requires the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This case demonstrates the importance of a fair trial, the role of the defense in scrutinizing the evidence, and the critical function of the jury in rendering a just verdict.