Question

100分！英译汉翻译 涉及法律问题 在线等!

The depositions of witnesses shu xiang liang ,li zhen zhang, ping-kai kwok, and hong bin yu were similarly edited .Finally ,the defense stipulated to redactions in the witness zhang dong yu‘ testimony.Baesd on this record, defendants’ general objection to the nature of the deposition testimony must fail .
Although the jury had plenty of deposition testimony to see and hear the witnesses' responses to the examination ,particularly in the caes of the lengthy depositions of witnesses zhen dong yu and hong bin yu,defendants assert that there were technical problems that prevented the jury from observing the demesnor of the witnesses. In the case of witness zhen dong yu,however,thoes technical problem generally consisted of short omitted lines of testimony that were corrected through the reading of that testimony .those issues did not produce a defense reguest for mistrial.
To obtain relief based on these technical issues on appeal ,defendants would have to demonstrate ,as described above in Section A.1,plain error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b).the existence of these issure ,in light of the efforts made to correct them, cannot be deemed plain errdr .Even if these issues constituted obvious error ,defendants cannot show that ,in the context of the lengthy depositions,their substantial rights were affected or that correction through reversal is required to maintain the fairness of judicial proceedings.
As for defendants' claim that they have been deprived of the opportunity for appellate review of the government's failure to introduce the videotaped depositions into evidence, the appropriate procedure would have been to seek expansion of the record in the district court , the government noted that it would be able to provide disks of the full depositions, given technical issues with reproducing the actual redacted protions thatwre played for the jury. There were no objection from the defense at that time .The government now seeks to provide those disks through its concurrently filed motion to expand the record with disks containing the video depositions, from which relevant portions were played for the jury at trial.The recordings are the complete depositions and include the portions redacted as a result of the district court 's rulings on the parties' objections(which are reflected in the filed deposition transcripted ) and the portions that were deleted as described above, so that the defense is able ro evalute what the jury did not see and hear and, if necessary ,seek leave to file supplemental briefing as to the depositions . The augmented record demonstrates that in fact the jury had ample opportunity to hear the lengthy examination of the deposed witnesses and evaluated their credibility.The admission of those videotaped depositions comported with defendants' right to fair trial.

有些单词打错了 希望不要在线翻译或是使用翻译软件。。。 看着根本不通顺

Answer 1

The depositions of witnesses shu xiang liang ,li zhen zhang, ping-kai kwok, and hong bin yu were similarly edited .Finally ,the defense stipulated to redactions in the witness zhang dong yu‘ testimony. Baesd on this record, defendants’ general objection to the nature of the deposition testimony must fail.
证人梁书香、张丽珍、郭平凯和余洪斌的供词也经过相同的编辑。最后，辩方要求编辑余章东的证词。被告人根据这个录像证词对所供述的证词性质提出反对，肯定会失败的。

Although the jury had plenty of deposition testimony to see and hear the witnesses' responses to the examination, particularly in the cases of the lengthy depositions of witnesses zhen dong yu and hong bin yu, defendants assert that there were technical problems that prevented the jury from observing the demeanor of the witnesses. In the case of witness zhen dong yu, however, those technical problems generally consisted of short omitted lines of testimony that were corrected through the reading of that testimony .those issues did not produce a defense request for mistrial.
尽管陪审团可以从许多的证词看到和听到证人在法庭审查过程中的反应，尤其是余振东和余洪斌两位证人的漫长作证，但被告人还是主张由于技术问题，导致陪审团没有看到证人的态度。
然而，有关证人余振东的情况，这些所谓的技术问题只涉及证词中被省略的一些短句子，而且在阅读证词的时候已改正过来；这些问题不足以让辩方要求审判无效。

To obtain relief based on these technical issues on appeal, defendants would have to demonstrate, as described above in Section A.1, plain error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b). The existence of these issues, in light of the efforts made to correct them, cannot be deemed plain error .Even if these issues constituted obvious error, defendants cannot show that ,in the context of the lengthy depositions, their substantial rights were affected or that correction through reversal is required to maintain the fairness of judicial proceedings.
被告人欲在上诉中凭借这些技术理由获得赔偿，他必须犹如上面第A1节所阐述的，证明有关判决犯了联邦刑事诉讼程序规则第52(b)条所述的明显错误。这些存在的问题，鉴于已付出努力改正过，因此不能认为是明显错误。甚至如果这些问题构成错误，就这漫长的证词而言，被告也无法显示他们的实际权利已受到影响，或者为了维持司法程序的公正而有必要撤销判决。

As for defendants' claim that they have been deprived of the opportunity for appellate review of the government's failure to introduce the videotaped depositions into evidence, the appropriate procedure would have been to seek expansion of the record in the district court , the government noted that it would be able to provide disks of the full depositions, given technical issues with reproducing the actual redacted portions that were played for the jury. There were no objections from the defense at that time .The government now seeks to provide those disks through its concurrently filed motion to expand the record with disks containing the video depositions, from which relevant portions were played for the jury at trial.
针对政府没有将录像证词作为呈堂证据，被告人声称他们被剥夺了上诉复审的机会，关于这一点，正确的程序应该是在地方法院时就要求扩展录制的视频证词，政府也指出有能力提供完整供词的录制光碟，但由于技术问题，只向陪审团播放实际编辑过的部分；不过被告当时没有提出反对。如今政府通过同时提出备案申请，扩展这些供证记录，试图提供含有视频证词的光碟，视频其中的相关部分已在审讯中向陪审团播放过。

The recordings are the complete depositions and include the portions redacted as a result of the district court 's rulings on the parties' objections(which are reflected in the filed deposition transcript ) and the portions that were deleted as described above, so that the defense is able to evaluate what the jury did not see and hear and, if necessary ,seek leave to file supplemental briefing as to the depositions . The augmented record demonstrates that in fact the jury had ample opportunity to hear the lengthy examination of the deposed witnesses and evaluated their credibility. The admission of those videotaped depositions comported with defendants' right to fair trial.
这些记录是全部的证词，包括因双方的反对而由地方法院裁定的编辑部分（体现于备案的证词记录），以及上面所述的删除部分，所以辩方能够从中评估哪些是陪审团没有看到和听到的；如有必要，可以寻求批准补充证词。这个增添的记录证明陪审团其实有足够的机会在漫长的法庭审查过程中听取证人的作证和评估他们的可信度。采纳那些视频证词符合被告人应获得公平审判的权利。

注：原文的错误也帮你改了。文章太长了，要加分哟！！

【英语牛人团】

Answer 2

我花了两个多小时为你翻出正确译文，并为你编辑、修改了英文，包括大小写和标点符号。请放心使用：

对证人梁淑湘、张丽珍、郭平凯和余洪斌【注：名字为音译，请与实际人名核对】的证词作了类似的编辑。最后，辩方要求删去证人余镇东【同前】的证词。根据这个记录，提出对作证性质的一般反对意见应该是失败的。

虽然陪审团需要看证人大量的证词并聆听证人的盘问的答复，尤其是在证人余镇东和余洪斌【同前】提供了很长的证词，但被告称，有一些技术性问题阻止了陪审团观察证人的表情。不过，就证人余镇东【同前】而言，这些技术性问题总的来说都是在宣读证词时已经纠正的很短的遗漏部分。这些问题不足以让辩方提出审判无效误判的要求。。

为了基于这些技术性问题在上诉中获得减免，被告必须根据A节第1条显示，出现了联邦刑事诉讼法第52条b款所界定的明显错误。鉴于已作努力纠正这些问题，因此这些问题也不能被视作明显错误。即使这些问题构成明显错误，辩方也没能显示在漫长的取证过程中，这些被告的实质权利受到影响，或者需要通过撤销判决进行纠正才能确保司法诉讼的公正性。

至于被告声称他们被剥夺了因政府在证据中不能提供录像证词而提出上诉审查的机会，适当的程序本应是寻求在地方法院扩大纪录。政府指出，鉴于重新播放已为陪审团播放但实际上被删去的部分出现了技术问题，它可以提供完整的作证光盘。当时辩方并没有反对。现在政府正同时提出一项动议，提出要用载有在审判时为陪审团播放的有关部分的取证录像的光盘来扩大记录，以此来提供这些光盘。这些录像是完整的取证内容，包括由于地区法院对双方提出的反对所作的裁决而删除的部分（这已反映在已记录并存档的证词里）和上述的被删除部分，以使辩方得以评估陪审团没有看到和听到的部分，并在必要时要求批准对取证内容提交补充性通报。经扩大的记录表明，其实陪审团有充分的机会聆听对证人长时间的审问并评估这些证人的可信性。同意加入这些取证的录像部分是符合辩方获得公平审判的权利的。

经编辑后的正确英文：
The depositions of witnesses Shu Xiang Liang, Li Zhen Zhang, Ping-kai Kwok, and Hong Bin Yu were similarly edited. Finally, the defense stipulated to redactions in the witness Zhang Dong Yu’s testimony. Based on this record, defendants’ general objection to the nature of the deposition testimony must fail.

Although the jury had plenty of deposition testimony to see and hear the witnesses' responses to the examination, particularly in the cases of the lengthy depositions of witnesses Zhen Dong Yu and Hong Bin Yu, defendants assert that there were technical problems that prevented the jury from observing the demeanor of the witnesses. In the case of witness Zhen Dong Yu, however, those technical problems generally consisted of short omitted lines of testimony that were corrected through the reading of that testimony. those issues did not produce a defense request for mistrial.

To obtain relief based on these technical issues on appeal, defendants would have to demonstrate, as described above in Section A.1, plain error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b). The existence of these issues, in light of the efforts made to correct them, cannot be deemed plain error .Even if these issues constituted obvious error, defendants cannot show that, in the context of the lengthy depositions, their substantial rights were affected or that correction through reversal is required to maintain the fairness of judicial proceedings.

As for defendants' claim that they have been deprived of the opportunity for appellate review of the government's failure to introduce the videotaped depositions into evidence, the appropriate procedure would have been to seek expansion of the record in the district court, the government noted that it would be able to provide disks of the full depositions, given technical issues with reproducing the actual redacted portions that were played for the jury. There were no objections from the defense at that time .The government now seeks to provide those disks through its concurrently filed motion to expand the record with disks containing the video depositions, from which relevant portions were played for the jury at trial.

The recordings are the complete depositions and include the portions redacted as a result of the district court's rulings on the parties' objections (which are reflected in the filed deposition transcript) and the portions that were deleted as described above, so that the defense is able to evaluate what the jury did not see and hear and, if necessary, seek leave to file supplemental briefing as to the depositions. The augmented record demonstrates that in fact the jury had ample opportunity to hear the lengthy examination of the deposed witnesses and evaluated their credibility. The admission of those videotaped depositions comported with defendants' right to fair trial.

祝顺利！

Answer 3

The depositons of witnesses shu xiang liang,li zhen zhang,ping-kai kwok,and hong bin yu were similarly edited.
（原告）证人舒香莲，李振章，平开什么（什么名字？）和宏斌与的证词基本相似。
Finally,the defense stipulated to redactions in the witness zhang dong yu's testimony.
Based on this record,defendants' general objection to the natrue of the depositon testimony must fail.
最终，辩护证人张东宇的证词将被依法记录在案。
基于这段录音，被告对于（原告）证人证词真实性的质疑将被驳回。
Although the jury had plenty of deposition testimony to see and hear the witnesses' responses to the examination,particularly in the case of the lengthy depositions of witnesses zhen dong yu and hong bin yu,defendants assert that there were technical problems that prevented the jury from observing the demesnor of the witnesses.
尽管陪审团已经浏览了大量证词（这样翻译时态不对，不过按照上下文应该这样），并且听取了证人对于（律师）提问的回答，特别是对于证人甄东宇和宏斌与的长篇证词，被告仍然坚持认为陪审团对于证人的demesnor（这个单词可能打错了）的审查受到了技术问题的阻碍。

现在就翻译这么多。你先设我为最佳，我接着帮你翻。

Answer 4

证人的宣示蜀湘梁,李真张ping-kai郭少明及槽于变卖编辑。最后,对redactions抗辩事由规定在证人的证词。张董玉在这张唱片Baesd、被告的总体反对大自然的沉积的见证一定会不及格。

虽然陪审团有足够的沉积的见证去看、去听几个证人的反应,特别是在caes考试旷日持久的宣示作证真玉垃圾桶侗族香港周瑜,被告声称有技术问题使陪审团通过观察demesnor的证人。在案件的见证深圳东周瑜,然而,其中包括技术问题通常较短的见证,忽略线路更正通过阅读的见证。这些问题没有生产设备为mistrial辩护。

在此基础上获得救济的技术问题进行上诉,则必须证明被告,正如上面所述a . 1节叶误差,根据联邦刑事诉讼程序的规则52(b)。这些问题的存在,根据努力改正错误,不能被视为errdr平原。即使这些问题构成了明显的错误,被告不能表明,在漫长的宣示的语境中,他们的实质性的权力,或通过影响校正逆转必须保持公平诉讼的。

至于被告人声称,他们被剥夺了生活的机会上诉审查政府没能引进录像证据宣示,适当的做法是寻求扩展的记录在地区法院,政府指出,它将能够提供完整的宣示磁盘复制技术问题,给实际编写部分thatwre参加陪审团。没有反对从防守。政府现在努力提供那些磁盘通过它提出扩大兼运动记录磁盘含有视频宣示,今天,相关部分陪审团的审判。录音是完整的并且包括修订宣示部分由于地方法院的裁决对双方当事人的异议(主要体现在存档沉积transcripted)和部分被删除如上所述,所以,在防守能罗依修饰什么陪审团没有看和听,如果有必要的话,寻求离开补充简报文件的宣示。加记录表明,事实上陪审团充足的机会听到冗长的检查和评价废黜了证人他们的信誉。允许那些录像带被告宣示的权利comported公平的审判。

Answer 5

证人舒项梁，李臻张，平凯帼和香港余斌的最终供词大致相同，辩护证人张董玉规定，以节录“testimony.Baesd这个纪录，被告一般反对证词的性质必须失败。
虽然陪审团的证词很多，看到和听到的证人“反应检查，特别是在冗长的证词证人董震羽和香港余斌CAES，被告声称，有技术问题，防止陪审团观察证人demesnor。然而，thoes在证人震董玉的情况下，一般技术问题包括短省略线的证词，通过阅读证词纠正这些问题没有产生误判国防reguest。
为了获得基于这些技术问题在上诉的救济，被告必须证明，根据刑事诉讼法52（二）联邦规则所述上述第A.1节，纯错误。存在这些issure的努力，即使这些问题构成了明显的错误予以纠正的，不能视为纯errdr。，被告可以不显示，在漫长的供词中，其实质权利人的影响或，通过反转矫正是需要保持司法的公正性诉讼。
至于被告声称，他们已被政府的引进为证据的录像证词上诉审查的机会被剥夺，适当的程序，将已被寻求扩大在地方法院的纪录，政府指出，它将能够提供完整的证言的磁盘，由于技术问题，与音响的实际删节protions thatwre陪审团播放。现在政府通过其同时提交的议案，旨在提供这些磁盘上，扩大与磁盘相关部分陪审团trial.The录音播放的录像证词，记录有没有从当时的辩护反对。完整的供词，包括反对（反映在提交的沉积转录），如上所述，被删除的部分地区法院裁决各方节录的部分，这样的防守能够RO evalute什么陪审团没有看到和听到的，如果有必要，要求批准文件作为补充简报的供词。增强的记录表明，其实陪审团有充分的机会听到废黜证人冗长的检查和评估其与被告公平审判的权利comported的那些录像供词credibility.The入场。

实在没功夫整理， 你大体参考下吧。回家过小年啦！

Answer 6

我听同意一楼的看法。太长了。你需要找到一些重点，我们来帮你。这篇幅，有点小怕。