Part A: Reading Comprehension

Directions: Read the following text. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (40 points)

Text 4

Many Americans regard the jury system as a concrete expression of crucial democratic values, including the principles that all citizens who meet minimal qualifications of age and literacy are equally competent to serve on juries; that jurors should be selected randomly from a representative cross section of the community; that no citizen should be denied the right to serve on a jury on account of race, religion, sex, or national origin; that defendants are entitled to trial by their peers; and that verdicts should represent the conscience of the community and not just the letter of the law. The jury is also said to be the best surviving example of direct rather than representative democracy. In a direct democracy, citizens take turns governing themselves, rather than electing representatives to govern for them.

But as recently as in 1968, jury selection procedures conflicted with these democratic ideals. In some states, for example, jury duty was limited to persons of supposedly superior intelligence, education, and moral character. Although the Supreme Court of the United States had prohibited intentional racial discrimination in jury selection as early as the 1880 case of Strauder v. West Virginia, the practice of selecting so-called elite or blue-ribbon juries provided a convenient way around this and other antidiscrimination laws.

The system also failed to regularly include women on juries until the mid-20th century. Although women first served on state juries in Utah in 1898, it was not until the 1940s that a majority of states made women eligible for jury duty. Even then several states automatically exempted women from jury duty unless they personally asked to have their names included on the jury list. This practice was justified by the claim that women were needed at home, and it kept juries unrepresentative of women through the 1960s.

In 1968, the Congress of the United States passed the Jury Selection and Service Act, ushering in a new era of democratic reforms for the jury. This law abolished special educational requirements for federal jurors and required them to be selected at random from a cross section of the entire community. In the landmark 1975 decision Taylor vs. Louisiana, the Supreme Court extended the requirement that juries be representative of all parts of the community to the state level. The Taylor decision also declared sex discrimination in jury selection to be unconstitutional and ordered states to use the same procedures for selecting male and female jurors.

36. From the principles of the U.S. jury system, we learn that

[A]

both literate and illiterate people can serve on juries. 

[B]

defendants are immune from trial by their peers. 

[C]

no age limit should be imposed for jury service. 

[D]

judgment should consider the opinion of the public. 

37. The practice of selecting so-called elite jurors prior to 1968 showed

[A]

the inadequacy of antidiscrimination laws. 

[B]

the prevalent discrimination against certain races. 

[C]

the conflicting ideals in jury selection procedures. 

[D]

the arrogance common among the Supreme Court judges. 

38. Even in the 1960s, women were seldom on the jury list in some states because

[A]

they were automatically banned by state laws. 

[B]

they fell far short of the required qualifications. 

[C]

they were supposed to perform domestic duties. 

[D]

they tended to evade public engagement. 

39. After the Jury Selection and Service Act was passed,

[A]

sex discrimination in jury selection was unconstitutional and had to be abolished. 

[B]

educational requirements became less rigid in the selection of federal jurors. 

[C]

jurors at the state level ought to be representative of the entire community. 

[D]

states ought to conform to the federal court in reforming the jury system. 

40. In discussing the U.S. jury system, the text centers on

[A]

its nature and problems. 

[B]

its characteristics and tradition. 

[C]

its problems and their solutions. 

[D]

its tradition and development. 

答案与解析 (Answers)

36. [D] judgment should consider the opinion of the public.
解析：第一段提到陪审团制度的原则之一是“verdicts should represent the conscience of the community（裁决应代表社区的良知）”。“社区良知”即公众的观点和良知，对应选项D中的 opinion of the public。选项A、C错误，因为文中提到有 age 和 literacy 的最低要求；选项B错误，因为被告 entitled to（有权）接受 peers 的审判。

37. [C] the conflicting ideals in jury selection procedures.
解析：第二段首句明确指出：“But as recently as in 1968, jury selection procedures conflicted with these democratic ideals（但直到1968年，陪审团选择程序仍与这些民主理想相冲突）”。紧接着举例说明“精英陪审团”的做法如何规避反歧视法。故选C。

38. [C] they were supposed to perform domestic duties.
解析：第三段末尾解释了为何女性直到60年代仍不具代表性：“This practice was justified by the claim that women were needed at home（这种做法的理由是女性被家里需要）”。needed at home 即对应选项C的 domestic duties（家务职责）。

39. [B] educational requirements became less rigid in the selection of federal jurors.
解析：第四段指出，1968年的法案“abolished special educational requirements for federal jurors（取消了对联邦陪审员的特殊教育要求）”。取消要求意味着变得 less rigid（不那么死板/放宽了）。选项A和C属于1975年的 Taylor 案裁决，而非1968年法案的内容。

40. [D] its tradition and development.
解析：整篇文章第一段描述了陪审团制度的传统理想（democratic values），第二、三段描述了历史上的不平等问题（tradition 中的阴暗面），第四段描述了通过法律和裁决实现的进步与改革（development）。全文纵向展示了该制度从理想、现实偏差到改革完善的过程。故选D。

核心长难句精解 (High-Light)

1. 复杂的并列宾语从句：
"...including the principles that all citizens... are equally competent...; that jurors should be selected randomly...; that no citizen should be denied...; that defendants are entitled to...; and that verdicts should represent..."
【解析】including 后面接了五个由 that 引导的并列从句，详细罗列了陪审团制度的五个核心原则。这种排比结构在考研法律类文章中非常常见，考察对核心定义的快速梳理。

2. IT-WAS-NOT-UNTIL 强调句型：
"Although women first served... in 1898, it was not until the 1940s that a majority of states made women eligible for jury duty."
【解析】it is not until... that... 是标准的强调句型，强调时间。翻译时应处理为“直到……才……”。

3. 同位语与分词状语复合：
"In 1968, the Congress... passed the Jury Selection and Service Act, ushering in a new era of democratic reforms for the jury."
【解析】ushering in... 是现在分词短语作结果状语（或伴随状语），表示法案的通过“开启了/带来了”一个新时代。