Meridy Lippoldt May 4, 2016:

another offering "absent the authority to hand down a judgment"

Germaine May 3, 2016:

Wendy, Il ne fait aucun doute que "le" renvoie à "verdict" (rendre quoi? "le" mis pour verdict), mais il ne fait aucun doute non plus que le sujet (celui qui fait l'action) de "rendre" est "la défense" (et non "verdict" qui ne peut être à la fois complément d'objet et sujet d'un même verbe). On s'en aperçoit peut-être un peu mieux en reprenant le participe:

"Le jugement de la Cour de district devrait être confirmé » termine la défense des accusés, [qui suggère] le verdict de rejet faute de pouvoir le rendre."

Qui suggère? la défense
Suggère quoi? "Le jugement de la Cour de district devrait être confirmé"
Suggère quoi? le verdict de rejet
(ce qui amène à conclure (par association) que le ou les jugements antérieurs susceptibles d'être confirmés rejetaient la (les) requêtes - ce qui est le cas: see p. 13 (viii) of your ref.)

Le résultat est le même quand on élimine l'inversion:
La défense termine [sur ces mots]: "Le jugement de la Cour de district devrait être confirmé » suggérant [ainsi] le verdict de rejet faute de pouvoir le rendre [elle-même]." (suggesting (thereby) the issue since they cannot/are not in a position to pronounce the judgement).

Didier Fourcot May 3, 2016:

"la défense" is the only subject in the sentence? We do all agree that the court is the one entity that should give the verdict, but I see one only between quotes (and this is another court!), so grammatically there is no court in the sentence.

The wording is a bit convoluted with the inversion "termine la défense", however "la défense" is the subject of "termine"; "suggérant" also refers to "la défense" and I cannot see how "faute de pouvoir" could refer to anything else.
Any defendant for sure did dream at some time of giving ghe verdict, but the purpose of the plea is to suggest and convince, this is what I understand, with Henrietta's understanding I believe the writer should have used "que la cour n'a pas pu rendre"

Adrian MM. (X) May 3, 2016:

Two interpretations/'dismissal' in US fed. law '...suggérant le verdict de rejet(,)(lequel) faute de pouvoir le rendre---'

If I can suggest that either a comma or lequel is missing, sending the interpretation two different ways. I took 'faute(r) to be shorthand for a/voir besoin de, though it does exist as a verb ('to go astray').

PS Henrietta's point about the defendant's inability to give the verdict may be down to the peculiarity of the term of 'dismissal' in US fed. law: both the court and a litigant - by some sort of strike-out - can 'dismiss' the case.

Wendy Cummings (asker) May 3, 2016:

@Henrietta The source is actually taken from a book, all about the victims of Agent Orange but with significant emphasis on the law suits that have been brought and with a strong bias on the side of the victims. So it *may* not be obvious to the readership, although I agree that, in any type of document, its an odd thing to say, since its only ever the courts that can hand down verdicts.

Henrietta King May 3, 2016:

I cannot disagree with Didier's logic and his interpretation is exactly what I thought but then I wondered why the fact that the defendant cannot give the verdict (its not its role, as Didier says), would be expressly stated. Why mention it in a legal document when it would be obvious to its intended readership? I considered that the sentence may have a slightly different meaning. I looked through the conclusions of the brief and it seems that it was not possible for the court to decide the case as it was not within its competence. This is why I interpreted the French expression to mean that the court could not decide the case, and took the view that the verdict was a passive subject.

Wendy Cummings (asker) May 3, 2016:

Two opposing interpretations Henrietta and Didier: you have both suggested different interpretations - these being the two that I had also come up with prior to posting the question. Are you able to provide further info in support of your comments or, alternatively (and politely!) explain why the other's is incorrect, in your opinion?

Didier Fourcot May 3, 2016:

Point of view La défense ne peut pas RENDRE le verdict (ce n'est pas son rôle)
elle SUGGERE donc le verdict de rejet par "le jugement... devrait être confirmé"

Le sujet c'est la défense qui ne peut pas rendre le verdict mais seulement le suggérer

Henrietta King May 3, 2016:

I agree with Adrian that the subject is the verdict - it's a passive subject in the sentence. The plaintiff's claims are barred and are not within the court's competence. The defendants are asking for the plaintiffs' case to be dismissed as a verdict cannot be given/the court cannot give a verdict.