Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
"in respect of the same transaction" and "founded on the facts disclosed by the evidence"
English answer:
"in answer to the accusation or any other accusation backed by a Grand Jury based on the same chain of events"
Added to glossary by
Michael Powers (PhD)
Jul 12, 2003 18:48
21 yrs ago
4 viewers *
English term
Certified Translator and Interpreter
Native in: Russian
Works in: English to Russian, Russian to English, Russian, and 1 more.
Meaning of this sentence
English
Law/Patents
Court procedure
Would you please explain to me the meaning of the following sentence?
Do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge or any other indictable offence, in respect of the same transaction, founded on the facts that are disclosed by the evidence?
I have trouble understanding what part of the sentence "in respect of the same transaction" and "founded on the facts disclosed by the evidence" relate to.
Is it to say anything in respect of the same transaction? Or is it the charge in respect of the same transaction? Or something else? And what exactly is founded on the facts? Charge founded on the facts?
Thanks!
Do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge or any other indictable offence, in respect of the same transaction, founded on the facts that are disclosed by the evidence?
I have trouble understanding what part of the sentence "in respect of the same transaction" and "founded on the facts disclosed by the evidence" relate to.
Is it to say anything in respect of the same transaction? Or is it the charge in respect of the same transaction? Or something else? And what exactly is founded on the facts? Charge founded on the facts?
Thanks!
Responses
+2
8 mins
Michael Powers (PhD)
United States
United States
Native in English
&
English
United States
US Court Cert. 1980 Ph.D. 1981
Native in: English
Works in: Spanish to English, Portuguese to English, English to Spanish, and 2 more.
Related KudoZ points
:
1174
Selected
explanation below
The meaning
"in respect to the same transaction"
Example: let's say, hypothetically, there is a drug transaction the includes both conspiracy to possess along with possession and the intent to distribute. This means two charges from one transction. This shows two indictable charges from one transaction. The charges are founded on the facts that evidence shows or discloses.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 mins (2003-07-12 19:06:40 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
An indictment is the formal charge handed back by the Grand Jury. One transaction, such as a drug deal, can include several counts or charges: 1) conspiracy to possess; 2) actual possession with the intent to distribute.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 19 mins (2003-07-12 19:08:09 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
The \"charges\" or accusations if you will, are based or founded on evidence (whether direct or indirect) that shows that there actually was a violation of the particular sections of the codes.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 21 mins (2003-07-12 19:09:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
When a proffer is offered by the prosecutor\'s office, for example, a description of what the purported facts would show is disclosed (spoken), and the defense has the opportunity to plea (declare guilty)or contest these charges (deny them).
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 24 mins (2003-07-12 19:12:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Here is another way of wordiing the same passage. Mike :)
Do you wish to say anything in answer to the accusation or any other accusation backed by a Grand Jury based on the same chain of events, that the facts in this case indicate happened?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs 41 mins (2003-07-12 21:29:15 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
In considering this, it is important to remember that the threshold level of a Grand Jury for returning an indictment (issuing a formal accusation) is very low: probable cause, a bear preponderance of the evidenc: much lower than beyond a reasonable doubt
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs 42 mins (2003-07-12 21:30:42 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
\"bare preponderance\" - excuse me
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs 38 mins (2003-07-13 02:27:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
The facts disclosed by the evidence is what the prosecutor\'s office (US Attorneys Office if US federal, or District Attorney\'s Office) alleges to be the truth. If it is a change of plea (in which the defendant is pleading guilty), the defendant agrees.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs 40 mins (2003-07-13 02:29:10 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
The discovery or pretrial evidence is shared with the defense. From this discovery inferences or deductions are made which becomes the foundation of the facts. The prosecutor makes it presentation, and the defense either agrees or does not.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs 42 mins (2003-07-13 02:30:20 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
If the defense does not agree, it either goes to trial or reaches a plea bargain with the prosecutor, usually compromising by pleading guilty to one or some charges and the other charges are then dismissed by the government (criminal case).
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs 45 mins (2003-07-13 02:34:00 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
\"Founded on the facts disclosed by the evidence\" refers to facts alreadly in evidence. The Judge is asking the accused to limit his comments to potential charges that could be indicted based on the already known facts e.g., to conspiracy, possession, etc.
"in respect to the same transaction"
Example: let's say, hypothetically, there is a drug transaction the includes both conspiracy to possess along with possession and the intent to distribute. This means two charges from one transction. This shows two indictable charges from one transaction. The charges are founded on the facts that evidence shows or discloses.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 mins (2003-07-12 19:06:40 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
An indictment is the formal charge handed back by the Grand Jury. One transaction, such as a drug deal, can include several counts or charges: 1) conspiracy to possess; 2) actual possession with the intent to distribute.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 19 mins (2003-07-12 19:08:09 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
The \"charges\" or accusations if you will, are based or founded on evidence (whether direct or indirect) that shows that there actually was a violation of the particular sections of the codes.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 21 mins (2003-07-12 19:09:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
When a proffer is offered by the prosecutor\'s office, for example, a description of what the purported facts would show is disclosed (spoken), and the defense has the opportunity to plea (declare guilty)or contest these charges (deny them).
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 24 mins (2003-07-12 19:12:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Here is another way of wordiing the same passage. Mike :)
Do you wish to say anything in answer to the accusation or any other accusation backed by a Grand Jury based on the same chain of events, that the facts in this case indicate happened?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs 41 mins (2003-07-12 21:29:15 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
In considering this, it is important to remember that the threshold level of a Grand Jury for returning an indictment (issuing a formal accusation) is very low: probable cause, a bear preponderance of the evidenc: much lower than beyond a reasonable doubt
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs 42 mins (2003-07-12 21:30:42 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
\"bare preponderance\" - excuse me
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs 38 mins (2003-07-13 02:27:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
The facts disclosed by the evidence is what the prosecutor\'s office (US Attorneys Office if US federal, or District Attorney\'s Office) alleges to be the truth. If it is a change of plea (in which the defendant is pleading guilty), the defendant agrees.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs 40 mins (2003-07-13 02:29:10 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
The discovery or pretrial evidence is shared with the defense. From this discovery inferences or deductions are made which becomes the foundation of the facts. The prosecutor makes it presentation, and the defense either agrees or does not.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs 42 mins (2003-07-13 02:30:20 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
If the defense does not agree, it either goes to trial or reaches a plea bargain with the prosecutor, usually compromising by pleading guilty to one or some charges and the other charges are then dismissed by the government (criminal case).
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs 45 mins (2003-07-13 02:34:00 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
\"Founded on the facts disclosed by the evidence\" refers to facts alreadly in evidence. The Judge is asking the accused to limit his comments to potential charges that could be indicted based on the already known facts e.g., to conspiracy, possession, etc.
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Extraordinary!"
12 mins
Alaa Zeineldine
Egypt
Egypt
Native in English
&
English
Egypt
The best in IT ... and in Automotive
Native in: Arabic 
, English
Works in: English to Arabic, Arabic to English, English, and 1 more.
Related KudoZ points
:
198
An attempt
See if this makes sense:
With the provision that your response has to be founded on the facts disclosed by the evidence, do you wish to respond to the charge, or to any other indictable offence that is related to the same transaction as the charge.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-07-12 19:55:24 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Irina. In response to your question, the sentence can go either way, so the question is a legal one.
Considering Mike\'s deeper involvement in the legal side of the business, I would go along with his intepretation. What enforces his parsing of the sentence further is the unlikelyhood that the court would exclude the option of the defender bringing new evidence for his/her defense.
Best of all if a lawer is around to tell us.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-07-13 03:29:20 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
the denfendant rather.
With the provision that your response has to be founded on the facts disclosed by the evidence, do you wish to respond to the charge, or to any other indictable offence that is related to the same transaction as the charge.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-07-12 19:55:24 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Irina. In response to your question, the sentence can go either way, so the question is a legal one.
Considering Mike\'s deeper involvement in the legal side of the business, I would go along with his intepretation. What enforces his parsing of the sentence further is the unlikelyhood that the court would exclude the option of the defender bringing new evidence for his/her defense.
Best of all if a lawer is around to tell us.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-07-13 03:29:20 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
the denfendant rather.
15 hrs
Nikki Scott-Despaigne
Native in English
&
English
Psychologist, Court-certified legal
Native in: English 
Works in: French to English
Related KudoZ points
:
26
Post-grading - an English angle on the question
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/478144
An English look at this one.
“Do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge or any other indictable offence, in respect of the same transaction, founded on the facts that are disclosed by the evidence?”
Question being put to the defendant in a case. He is being asked whether he would like to comment on the “charge” being made out against him – the thing he is being accused of having done.
The charge relates to a deal (“transaction”) of some sort. Reference is made to “any other indictable offence”, which means that the offence he is being accused of is already an “indictable office”.
(An indictable offence is one which may be tried by jury in the Crown Court – e.g. murder, rape… Some indictable offences, less serious ones, can be tried by magistrates or on indictment and are referred to as “either way offences” – e.g. theft. If this is an English context, then the Magistrates’ Court looks at the initial facts of the case and decides whether they can deal with the matter themselves. If so, they must give the defendant the choice of going before a jury and Crown Court).
“in respect of the same transaction” : one charge has been made against the defendant. He is being asked whether he wishes to comment on the charge or any other offence of the same type – related to the same deal.
“founded on the facts disclosed by the evidence” : the accused/defendant is being asked if he has anything to say based on the same set of facts which have been considered by the court.
An English look at this one.
“Do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge or any other indictable offence, in respect of the same transaction, founded on the facts that are disclosed by the evidence?”
Question being put to the defendant in a case. He is being asked whether he would like to comment on the “charge” being made out against him – the thing he is being accused of having done.
The charge relates to a deal (“transaction”) of some sort. Reference is made to “any other indictable offence”, which means that the offence he is being accused of is already an “indictable office”.
(An indictable offence is one which may be tried by jury in the Crown Court – e.g. murder, rape… Some indictable offences, less serious ones, can be tried by magistrates or on indictment and are referred to as “either way offences” – e.g. theft. If this is an English context, then the Magistrates’ Court looks at the initial facts of the case and decides whether they can deal with the matter themselves. If so, they must give the defendant the choice of going before a jury and Crown Court).
“in respect of the same transaction” : one charge has been made against the defendant. He is being asked whether he wishes to comment on the charge or any other offence of the same type – related to the same deal.
“founded on the facts disclosed by the evidence” : the accused/defendant is being asked if he has anything to say based on the same set of facts which have been considered by the court.
Reference:
Discussion