Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:19:23 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Re;"Michael Williams, 32, was scheduled to die
last year for a 1993 rape, robbery and murder.
Instead, he will get a new hearing because an
investigator found that the forewoman of his jury
had been married to a deputy sheriff who testified against him."
At 08:41 AM 4/21/2008, Patricia Lafayllve wrote:
. . . Grammatically OK as a sentence (I’d say),
and implies she married the deputy sheriff at
some time in the past, but as it stands the
sentence does not necessarily mean they were
married during the trial. My solution: “…because
an investigator found that, at the time of the
trial, the forewoman of his jury had been married…”
DD: The sentence as first presented allows the
marriage ceremony and subsequent status of
married to be before the trial, during the trial,
as well as after the trial, but before the
investigator's finding. I love it. There is the
delightful question, "Does it imply that the
marriage was terminated?" Your rewrite at least
eliminates after the trial time. I wouldn't even
try for a rewrite, I am too cowardly.
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
|
|