jurisdiction 是「管轄權」，指法院審理案件的權限；jury 是「陪審團」；verdict 是陪審團作出的「裁決」

jurisdiction 是「管轄權」，指法院審理案件的權限；jury 是「陪審團」；verdict 是陪審團作出的「裁決」，與法官作出的 judgment（判決）不同

第一句：管轄權 jurisdiction（81 字）

In legal studies of judicial authority, the jurisdictions empowering courts to hear particular cases and limiting their reach to defined territories or subject matters were procedural boundaries that were established by constitutions and statutes, which were either respected as safeguards against arbitrary power or contested by litigants who were convinced that distant forums disadvantaged them, thereby allocating judicial responsibilities by assigning disputes to competent tribunals and protecting defendants from unfair proceedings across federal systems that had long divided authority among governments.

1. 結構破解

In legal studies of judicial authority,

the jurisdictions

empowering courts to hear particular cases

and limiting their reach to defined territories or subject matters

were procedural boundaries

that were established by constitutions and statutes,

which were either respected as safeguards against arbitrary power

or contested by litigants

who were convinced that distant forums disadvantaged them,

thereby allocating judicial responsibilities

by assigning disputes to competent tribunals

and protecting defendants from unfair proceedings

across federal systems

that had long divided authority among governments.

2. 分解為短句

In legal studies of judicial authority, the jurisdictions were procedural boundaries.（主句骨架）

The jurisdictions empowered courts to hear particular cases and limited their reach to defined territories or subject matters.

The boundaries were established by constitutions and statutes.

The boundaries were either respected as safeguards against arbitrary power or contested by litigants.

The litigants were convinced that distant forums disadvantaged them.

This allocated judicial responsibilities by assigning disputes to competent tribunals and protecting defendants from unfair proceedings across federal systems.

The systems had long divided authority among governments.

3. 參考譯文

在司法權威的法學研究中，賦予法院審理特定案件之權力、並把其範圍限定於特定領域或事務類型的管轄權，是由憲法與成文法所確立的程序性界線；這些界線若非被尊重為對抗專斷權力的保障，就是受到深信遠地法院使其處於不利的訴訟當事人所質疑，從而藉由把爭端分派給有權限的法庭來分配司法職責，並在長期於各級政府間劃分權力的聯邦體制中保護被告免受不公程序。

4. 組合寫作練習（請勿看例句，嘗試將短句組回原長句）

5. 補充說明

empowering / limiting：現在分詞片語，取代 which empowered... and limited...

empower A to + V：授權 A 做……；limit A to B：把 A 限定於 B

jurisdiction：「管轄權」，拉丁文 juris（法律）＋ dictio（宣告）

subject matter：「事務類型」；subject-matter jurisdiction 為「事物管轄」

be convinced that + 子句：深信……

litigant：「訴訟當事人」；forum：「審判地、法庭」

tribunal：「法庭、裁判機構」；arbitrary：「專斷的」

第二句：陪審團 jury（76 字）

In historical accounts of serious criminal trials, the juries drawing ordinary citizens into courtrooms and requiring them to weigh conflicting testimony before deciding guilt were deliberative bodies that were protected by constitutional traditions, which were either praised for restraining state power or criticized by observers who were worried that emotion and prejudice distorted collective judgment, thereby legitimizing legal outcomes by representing community values and checking professional officials who had long dominated proceedings across many common-law countries.

1. 結構破解

In historical accounts of serious criminal trials,

the juries

drawing ordinary citizens into courtrooms

and requiring them to weigh conflicting testimony before deciding guilt

were deliberative bodies

that were protected by constitutional traditions,

which were either praised for restraining state power

or criticized by observers

who were worried that emotion and prejudice distorted collective judgment,

thereby legitimizing legal outcomes

by representing community values

and checking professional officials

who had long dominated proceedings

across many common-law countries.

2. 分解為短句

In historical accounts of serious criminal trials, the juries were deliberative bodies.（主句骨架）

The juries drew ordinary citizens into courtrooms and required them to weigh conflicting testimony before deciding guilt.

The bodies were protected by constitutional traditions.

The bodies were either praised for restraining state power or criticized by observers.

The observers were worried that emotion and prejudice distorted collective judgment.

This legitimized legal outcomes by representing community values and checking professional officials across many common-law countries.

The officials had long dominated proceedings.

3. 參考譯文

在重大刑事審判的歷史敘述中，把一般公民拉進法庭、並要求他們在決定有罪與否之前衡量相互衝突之證詞的陪審團，是受憲法傳統保護的審議機構；這些機構若非因約束國家權力而受稱讚，就是受到擔憂情緒與偏見扭曲集體判斷的觀察者所批評，從而藉由體現社群價值並制衡長期主導訴訟程序的專業官員，在許多普通法國家使法律結果取得正當性。

4. 組合寫作練習（請勿看例句，嘗試將短句組回原長句）

5. 補充說明

drawing / requiring：現在分詞片語，取代 which drew... and required...

draw A into B：把 A 拉進 B；require A to + V：要求 A 做……

jury：「陪審團」；juror：「陪審員」；grand jury：「大陪審團」

be worried that + 子句：擔憂……

deliberative：「審議的」；deliberation：「評議」

legitimize：「使具正當性」；common-law：「普通法的」

collective judgment：「集體判斷」；prejudice：「偏見」

第三句：陪審團作出的裁決 verdict（76 字）

In courtroom procedure manuals, the verdicts announcing whether defendants were guilty or liable and reflecting the agreement jurors reached after deliberation were formal public decisions that were delivered aloud in open court, which were either accepted as final expressions of community judgment or challenged by lawyers who were convinced that judges had misdirected the jurors, thereby concluding trials by resolving factual disputes and guiding sentencing decisions across many courts that had long relied on unanimous agreement.

1. 結構破解

In courtroom procedure manuals,

the verdicts

announcing whether defendants were guilty or liable

and reflecting the agreement jurors reached after deliberation

were formal public decisions

that were delivered aloud in open court,

which were either accepted as final expressions of community judgment

or challenged by lawyers

who were convinced that judges had misdirected the jurors,

thereby concluding trials

by resolving factual disputes

and guiding sentencing decisions

across many courts

that had long relied on unanimous agreement.

2. 分解為短句

In courtroom procedure manuals, the verdicts were formal public decisions.（主句骨架）

The verdicts announced whether defendants were guilty or liable and reflected the agreement jurors reached after deliberation.

The decisions were delivered aloud in open court.

The decisions were either accepted as final expressions of community judgment or challenged by lawyers.

The lawyers were convinced that judges had misdirected the jurors.

This concluded trials by resolving factual disputes and guiding sentencing decisions across many courts.

The courts had long relied on unanimous agreement.

3. 參考譯文

在法庭程序手冊中，宣告被告有罪或須負責、並反映陪審員經審議後所達成共識的裁決，是在公開法庭上當眾宣布的正式公開決定；這些決定若非被接受為社群判斷的最終表達，就是受到深信法官誤導陪審員的律師所質疑，從而藉由解決事實爭議並引導量刑決定，在許多長期仰賴一致同意的法院中結束了審判。

4. 組合寫作練習（請勿看例句，嘗試將短句組回原長句）

5. 補充說明

announcing / reflecting：現在分詞片語，取代 which announced... and reflected...

announce whether + 子句：宣布是否……

verdict：「（陪審團的）裁決」；刑事案為 guilty / not guilty，民事案為 liable / not liable

verdict 與 judgment 不同：verdict 由陪審團作出，judgment 是法官據以作出的「判決」

the agreement jurors reached：省略關係代名詞 that 的關係子句

misdirect：「錯誤指示、誤導」；sentencing：「量刑」

unanimous：「全體一致的」；deliberation：「評議」

in open court：「在公開法庭上」

三句皆沿用原骨架：主句為「名詞＋現在分詞片語＋were＋名詞」，接 that 子句、which were either...or...，最後以 thereby＋V-ing 收尾。