2026年6月22日 / 美国东部时间上午11:05 / 哥伦比亚广播公司/美联社
美国最高法院周一恢复了对1979年6岁儿童伊坦·帕茨失踪案的谋杀定罪。帕茨的案件曾震惊纽约市，并改变了家长看护子女的方式。
大法官以6票赞成、3票反对的投票结果，批准了纽约检察官的上诉请求，后者敦促最高法院推翻联邦上诉法院推翻原判的裁决。三名自由派大法官投下了反对票。
检方原本准备第三次对佩德罗·埃尔南德斯提起诉讼。他的第一次审判以陪审团无效告终。
美国第二巡回上诉法院的全体一致合议庭在第二次审判中推翻了埃尔南德斯的谋杀和绑架定罪，理由是法官对陪审团的问题答复不当。
曼哈顿地区检察官阿尔文·布拉格称，推翻定罪的依据“站不住脚”，本质上忽视了这场持续5个月、有66名证人出庭的审判。
最高法院在一份未署名的判决意见中表示，根据1996年联邦法律，联邦法院不应干预州法院的审判，该法律旨在减少联邦法院对州刑事审判的监督。
“第二巡回法院认定埃尔南德斯有权获得救济，超出了其权限范围，”高等法院在提及这家总部位于纽约的上诉法院时写道。
现年64岁的埃尔南德斯一直在狱中服刑，刑期为25年至终身监禁。周一的裁决意味着他将继续在纽约州埃尔迈拉惩教所服刑。他将在2037年获得假释资格。
埃尔南德斯的律师表示：“我们对这一裁决深感失望，因为我们坚信一名无辜者因未犯下的罪行而入狱。”
埃尔南德斯曾在警方讯问中承认犯罪，但他的律师称，他的虚假供词源于一种有时会让他产生幻觉的精神疾病。他们强调，警方在未宣读他的米兰达权利、未对讯问进行录音的情况下，对他进行了约7小时的询问，之后他才作出供述。埃尔南德斯随后至少两次在录音中重复了自己的供词。
伊坦·帕茨从纽约市的家中出发，步行前往仅两个街区外的校车停靠点。这是他首次请求父母允许他独自步行这段短途路程去公交站。他带着一美元，打算在街角的熟食店买一杯汽水。
这名6岁儿童在1979年5月的那天再也没有抵达学校，且至今下落不明。
埃尔南德斯当时在附近的一家便利店工作，但这位新泽西州梅普尔肖恩的居民直到2012年才成为嫌疑人。
伊坦是首批出现在牛奶 carton 上的失踪儿童之一，他的失踪周年纪念日被定为全国失踪儿童日。
埃尔南德斯已经受审两次。2015年的陪审团未能达成一致裁决，随后另一组陪审团在2017年的重审中认定他有罪。
在2017年的审判审议期间，陪审团提出了一个复杂的问题：如果他们认定埃尔南德斯在未被宣读米兰达权利前的供词并非自愿作出，是否必须无视他的其他供词？当时的法官简单答复：“答案是否定的。”陪审团随后作出了有罪裁决。
在推翻该判决时，上诉法院表示，陪审团的问题本应得到更详尽的答复，包括可能全盘否定所有供词的情形。
Supreme Court reinstates murder conviction in 1979 disappearance of 6-year-old Etan Patz
June 22, 2026 / 11:05 AM EDT / CBS/AP
The Supreme Court on Monday reinstated a murder conviction in the 1979 disappearance of 6-year-old Etan Patz, whose case shocked New York City and changed the way parents watched over their kids.
The justices, by a 6-3 vote, granted an appeal from New York prosecutors who had urged them to undo a federal appeals court decision that overturned the verdict. The three liberal justices dissented.
Prosecutors had been preparing to try the man, Pedro Hernandez, for a third time. His first trial ended in a mistrial.
The unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed Hernandez’ murder and kidnapping conviction in the second trial because of how the judge had answered a question from jurors.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had called the basis for overturning the conviction “a slender reed” that essentially ignored a 5-month-long trial with 66 witnesses.
The Supreme Court justices agreed, in an unsigned opinion, that federal courts should not second-guess state courts under a 1996 federal law that was intended to reduce federal court oversight of state criminal trials.
“The Second Circuit exceeded its authority in holding that Hernandez is entitled to relief,” the high court wrote, referring to the New York-based appeals court.
Hernandez, 64, has been serving a sentence of 25 years to life in prison. Monday’s decision means he will continue to serve his sentence at the Elmira Correctional Facility in New York. He will be eligible for parole in 2037.
Attorneys for Hernandez said, “We are firmly disappointed with the decision because we firmly believe that an innocent man is in jail for a crime he did not do.”
Hernandez admitted to the crime under police questioning, but his lawyers say he confessed falsely because of a mental illness that sometimes made him hallucinate. They emphasized that the admission came after police queried him for about seven hours before reading him his rights and recording the interview. Hernandez then repeated his confession on tape, at least twice.
Etan Patz walked out of his New York City home headed for a school bus stop just two blocks away. He had asked his parents to let him do the short walk to the bus stop alone for the first time. He had a dollar to buy a soda at a corner deli.
The 6-year-old never made it to school that day in May of 1979, and he’s never been found.
Hernandez worked at a nearby convenience shop at the time, but the Maple Shade, New Jersey, resident didn’t become a suspect until 2012.
Etan was among the first missing children ever to appear on milk cartons, and the anniversary of his disappearance became National Missing Children’s Day.
Hernandez already has been tried twice. A jury deadlocked in 2015, and then a different panel of jurors convicted him at a 2017 retrial.
During deliberations, the 2017 jurors asked a complicated question: If they decided Hernandez didn’t confess voluntarily when he hadn’t been read his rights yet, must they disregard his other confessions? The then-judge responded simply, “the answer is no.” The jury went on to convict.
In overturning that verdict, the appeals court said the jury’s question should have gotten a more fulsome answer, including the possibility of discounting all the confessions.
发表回复