急求法律英语达人帮忙翻译一下~!英翻中~

Question

高手帮忙翻译一下...拒绝翻译软件,全部分数送上,有点少,抱歉.

The Rules of Evidence
The trial process is governed by rules of evidence. Each court system has its own set of evidentiary rules and the character of the proceeding may vary somewhat depending on what types of evidence are permitted to be introduced. Most generally, proper evidence or testimony is that which is relevant and not privileged or hearsay. Definitions of relevance, privilege, and hearsay fill the law books and are explored more fully in the separate course on evidence. A brief description here will suffice.
The relevance of specific evidence is determined in relation to the scope of the issues in the case at hand. Irrelevant evidence is excluded in order to aid the trier of fact in focusing on what actually is in issue. Privileged matter is excluded to protect the privacy of individuals in certain relationships (e. g, doctor-patient, lawyer-client). Persons in a privileged relationship need not reveal any communications that occurred between them. The law places a greater value on preserving the sanctity of those relationships than on the need to find truth based on all the possible evidence. Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the fact or truth of the matter stated. The rules defining hearsay are riddled with exceptions. In general, the prohibition against the use of hearsay evidence exists because hearsay is deemed inherently unreliable because there is no opportunity to cross-examine the actual person who made the statement. The exceptions that are recognized typically involve situations in which other circumstance appear to ensure that the evidence is reliable( such as the exception for the introduction of records created during the day to day operation of a business), or in which there does not appear to be other evidence that could be used to prove the matter at issue(such as statements by a person regarding his motives).
Counsel must raise evidentiary objections immediately or they will be waived. In addition, in the case of privileged information, the parties to the relationship can waive their right to claim privilege by their conduct. If an objection is sustained, the evidence will be stricken or the jury will be instructed not to take it into account in rendering the verdict. A judge trial often is a little less rigid in adhering strictly to the evidentiary rules because it is assumed that the judge will disregard improper evidence and consider only proper evidence. Thus, there is less need for the lawyers to object as frequently. Similarly, there is less fear that improper evidence will be considered if the court sustains an objection. In the jury setting, there is a serious question whether it is reasonable to expect the jurors to disregard improper evidence that is mentioned in their presence, even if instructed to do so, or whether the jury has been so prejudiced that a mistrial should be called

Answer 1

The Rules of Evidence
证据规则

The trial process is governed by rules of evidence. Each court system has its own set of evidentiary rules and the character of the proceeding may vary somewhat depending on what types of evidence are permitted to be introduced. Most generally, proper evidence or testimony is that which is relevant and not privileged or hearsay. Definitions of relevance, privilege, and hearsay fill the law books and are explored more fully in the separate course on evidence. A brief description here will suffice.
试验过程由证据规则治理。 每法律系统有它自己的套证据规则，并且行动的字符也许根据被允许介绍什么样的证据变化有些。 通常，合适的证据或证词是相关和不特许或者小道消息的那。 相关性、特权和小道消息积土的定义法律书籍和在证据的分开的路线更加充分地被探索。 这里一个简要说明将足够了。

The relevance of specific evidence is determined in relation to the scope of the issues in the case at hand. Irrelevant evidence is excluded in order to aid the trier of fact in focusing on what actually is in issue. Privileged matter is excluded to protect the privacy of individuals in certain relationships (e. g, doctor-patient, lawyer-client). Persons in a privileged relationship need not reveal any communications that occurred between them. The law places a greater value on preserving the sanctity of those relationships than on the need to find truth based on all the possible evidence. Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the fact or truth of the matter stated. The rules defining hearsay are riddled with exceptions.
具体证据相关性关于问题的范围是坚定的在手头的案件的。 毫不相关的证据被排除为了帮助事实的实验者在集中的于什么实际上在问题。 特许的问题被排除保护个体保密性在某些关系(即，医生患者，律师客户)的。 一个特许的关系的人不需要显露发生在他们之间的任何通信。 法律在保存安置一个很大的价值那些关系的神圣比在需要发现真相根据所有可能的证据。 小道消息被定义作为被提供的一个法庭外声明证明陈述的问题的事实或真相。 定义小道消息的规则非难有例外。

In general, the prohibition against the use of hearsay evidence exists because hearsay is deemed inherently unreliable because there is no opportunity to cross-examine the actual person who made the statement.
一般来说，反对使用的禁止传闻证据存在，因为小道消息被视为本质上地不可靠，因为没有机会盘问发表声明的实际人。

The exceptions that are recognized typically involve situations in which other circumstance appear to ensure that the evidence is reliable( such as the exception for the introduction of records created during the day to day operation of a business), or in which there does not appear to be other evidence that could be used to prove the matter at issue(such as statements by a person regarding his motives).
典型地被认可的例外介入其他情况看上去保证的情况证据是可靠的(例如纪录的介绍的例外日间被创造对事务的天操作)，或者在哪些那里不看来是可能被用于证明争议的其他证据(例如声明由关于他的动机的一个人)。

Counsel must raise evidentiary objections immediately or they will be waived. In addition, in the case of privileged information, the parties to the relationship can waive their right to claim privilege by their conduct. If an objection is sustained, the evidence will be stricken or the jury will be instructed not to take it into account in rendering the verdict. A judge trial often is a little less rigid in adhering strictly to the evidentiary rules because it is assumed that the judge will disregard improper evidence and consider only proper evidence. Thus, there is less need for the lawyers to object as frequently. Similarly, there is less fear that improper evidence will be considered if the court sustains an objection. In the jury setting, there is a serious question whether it is reasonable to expect the jurors to disregard improper evidence that is mentioned in their presence, even if instructed to do so, or whether the jury has been so prejudiced that a mistrial should be called
忠告必须立刻提出证据异议或他们将被放弃。 另外，在特许信息情况下，对关系的党可能放弃他们的权利由他们的品行要求特权。 如果反对被承受，证据将是折磨的或陪审员将被指示不考虑它在回报定案。 法官试验经常是有点较不刚性的在严密遵守证据规则，因为假设，法官将忽视不正当的证据并且考虑仅合适的证据。 因此，有较少需要对于律师反对作为常常地。 同样，有较少恐惧不正当的证据将被考虑法院是否承受反对。 在陪审团设置，有一个严肃的问题盼望陪审员忽视在他们的存在被提及，即使指示如此做的不正当的证据是否是合理的，或者陪审员是否是，因此存了偏见应该叫误判

Answer 2

证据规则
审判过程是由证据规则。每个法院系统有其自己的一套证据规则和性质的程序可能会有所不同，视乎有些什么类型的证据，均不得引进。最普遍，适当的证据或证词的是，这是有关，而不是特权或道听途说。的定义，相关性，特权，和道听途说，填补法律书籍和探索更充分地分开，当然就证据。简要介绍了这里将是不够的。
相关的具体证据是确定的有关问题的范围，在本案中，一方面。不相干的证据排除在以援助特里尔事实上，在重点是什么，实际上是在问题。享有特权的问题被排除在保护个人隐私，在某些关系（如克，医生和病人，律师-客户端）。人在一个特殊的关系不必透露任何通讯之间发生。法律的地方有更大的价值就维护神圣的这些关系比对需要寻找真理的基础上的所有可能的证据。传闻被界定为一个彻头彻尾的庭外发表声明提供证明的事实或事情的真相。规则界定的传闻是千疮百孔的例外。在一般的，禁止使用传闻证据的存在，是因为传闻被认为是根本不可靠，是因为有没有机会，以两岸研究实际的人谁发表声明。例外情况是公认的通常涉及在何种情况下其他情况下出现，以确保该证据是可靠的（如例外引进的纪录，期间创建的日常运作业务） ，或在其中似乎不存在其他的证据可以用来证明此事的问题（如报表，由一个人关于他的动机） 。
律师必须提出证据反对立即或他们将被豁免。此外，在案件保密的资料，各方的关系，可以放弃其权利要求享有特权，他们的行为。如果有人提出反对，是持续，证据将受灾或陪审团将指示没有考虑到在绘制判决。一名法官审判，往往是少僵化，在严格遵守证据规则，因为它是假设，法官会不顾不当的证据，并只考虑适当的证据。因此，有少需要律师的对象那样频繁。同样地，有少担心不当的证据，将被视为如果法院维持反对。在陪审团设置，有一个严重的问题，是否是合理的期望陪审员无视不当的证据，这是中提及他们的存在，即使指示这样做，或是否陪审团已使偏见，认为误判应称为

参考本回答被网友采纳