来源：《美联社新闻》
原文刊登日期：2021年5月17日
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that prisoners who were convicted by non-unanimous juries before the high court barred the practice a year ago don’t need to be retried.
最高法院周一裁定，在最高法院一年前禁止非一致陪审团定罪之前入狱的犯人，不需要再审。
The justices ruled 6-3 along conservative-liberal lines that prisoners whose cases had concluded before the justices’ 2020 ruling shouldn’t benefit from it. The decision affects prisoners who were convicted in Louisiana and Oregon, the few places that had allowed criminal convictions based on divided jury votes.
大法官们以6比3的投票结果做出裁决，那些在大法官们2020年判决之前已经结案的囚犯不应从中受益，其中6张多数票都来自保守派大法官，3张少数票都来自自由派大法官。这一决定影响到路易斯安那州和俄勒冈州被判有罪的囚犯，这两个州是少数几个允许根据不一致的陪审团意见而定罪的地方。
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the conservative majority that the court’s “well-settled retroactivity doctrine” led to the conclusion that the decision doesn’t apply retroactively. The decision “tracks the Court’s many longstanding precedents on retroactivity,” he wrote.
大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺代表保守派多数派写道，最高法院“妥善解决的追溯原则”，导致了2020年的判决不具有追溯效力的结论。他写道，本次判决“追踪了法院在追溯效力方面的许多长期先例”。
In a dissent joined by her two liberal colleagues, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that as a result of the ruling, “For the first time in many decades ... those convicted under rules found not to produce fair and reliable verdicts will be left without resort in federal courts.”
大法官埃琳娜·卡根和她的两名自由派同事持不同意见，她写道，由于这项裁决，“几十年来第一次……那些根据不公正、不可靠的陪审团裁决被定罪的人将无法在联邦法院获得最后的司法救济。”
During arguments in the case, the justices were told that ruling in favor of the prisoners could mean retrials for 1,000 to 1,600 people in Louisiana alone. States and the Trump administration had urged the court not to give more prisoners the benefit of the ruling, saying doing so would be “massively disruptive” in both Louisiana and Oregon and might mean “the release of violent offenders who cannot practically be retried.”
在该案辩论期间，大法官们被告知，对囚犯有利的裁决可能意味着仅在路易斯安那州就有1000到1600人需要重审。美国各州和特朗普政府曾敦促最高法院不要让更多囚犯从2020年裁决中受益，称这样做在路易斯安那州和俄勒冈州都将“造成巨大破坏”，可能意味着“释放实际上无法复审的暴力罪犯”。
As a result of the high court’s 2020 ruling, juries everywhere must vote unanimously to convict. But that decision affected only future cases and cases in which the defendants were still appealing their convictions when the high court ruled. The question the high court was answering in the current case was whether the decision should be made retroactive to cases that were final before the ruling.
根据最高法院2020年的裁决，各州陪审团必须一致投票决定是否定罪。但这一决定只影响到未来的案件，以及在最高法院作出裁决时被告仍在上诉的案件。最高法院在本案中回答的问题是，2020判决是否应追溯至在此之前已经结案的判决。
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry praised the ruling. “Today, the Supreme Court reaffirmed long-final convictions involving rape, murder, and other violent crimes,” he said in a statement. “At a time when crime rates are through the sky and attempts to erode law and order are continuing, it is assuring that the Supreme Court upheld the rule of law.”
路易斯安那州司法部长杰夫·兰德里赞扬了最高法院周一的裁决。“今天，最高法院重申了涉及强奸、谋杀和其他暴力犯罪的长期最终定罪，”他在一份声明中说。“在犯罪率高得离谱，破坏法律和秩序的企图还在继续的时候，可以肯定的是，最高法院维护了法治。”
The case the justices ruled in involves Louisiana prisoner Edwards. A jury convicted Edwards of rape and multiple counts of armed robbery and kidnapping. The jury divided 10-2 on most of the robbery charges and 11-1 on the remaining charges. Edwards, who had confessed to police, was sentenced to life in prison.
大法官周一裁决的案件涉及路易斯安那州的囚犯爱德华兹。当初陪审团判定爱德华兹犯有强奸罪和多项武装抢劫和绑架罪。陪审团对大部分抢劫指控的投票结果为10比2，对其余指控的投票结果为11比1。爱德华兹向警方供认不讳，被判终身监禁。
In a statement, Edwards’ attorney André Bélanger said he was “disappointed in the Court’s ruling.” But he said the “fight is not over,” explaining that rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution are just a minimum standard and Louisiana is free to apply the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling retroactively as a matter of state law. “This is obviously something that will be litigated moving forward,” he said.
爱德华兹的律师Bélanger在一份声明中说，他对最高法院的裁决感到失望。但他表示，“斗争还没有结束”，他解释说，美国宪法保障的权利只是最低标准，路易斯安那州可以根据州法律，自由适用最高法院2020年的裁决。他说:“这显然是将来会被提起诉讼的事情。”