华盛顿——哥伦比亚特区高级法院法官已永久禁止珍妮·皮罗（Jeanine Pirro）的办公室就林肯纪念堂倒影池受损一事对一名奥运前皮划艇运动员提起诉讼。埃德尔曼（Todd Edelman）法官于周四做出裁决，驳回了该案并不予重新起诉。
WASHINGTON — A D.C. Superior Court judge has permanently banned Jeanine Pirro’s office from bringing charges against a former Olympic canoeist over damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Judge Todd Edelman entered an order on Thursday that dismissed the case with prejudice.
大卫·“戴维”·赫恩（David “Davey” Hearn）的律师与美国哥伦比亚特区联邦检察官办公室上个月在法庭上就赫恩的倒影池案是否应予以驳回且不得再诉展开了交锋，这意味着检察官将被禁止对他再次提起诉讼。
Attorneys for David “Davey” Hearn and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia sparred in court last month over whether Hearn’s Reflecting Pool case should be dismissed with prejudice, meaning prosecutors would be barred from bringing another case against him.
讨论的核心内容大部分在于：唐纳德·特朗普向皮罗的办公室施压，以及他决定将自己对起诉的渴望与赫恩及其代理律师之一诺姆·艾森（Norm Eisen）的政治信仰联系起来。
At the center of much of the discussion: Donald Trump’s pressure campaign on Pirro’s office and his decision to link his desire for prosecution to the political beliefs of Hearn and one of his attorneys, Norm Eisen.
由于证据显示事发区域此前已经受损，皮罗的办公室于7月下旬撤销了该案，随后赫恩的团队于8月动议禁止该办公室再次提起诉讼。在上个月的一场无关的新闻发布会上，皮罗拒绝回答记者关于她处理倒影池案的多项提问。
Pirro’s office dropped the case in late July after evidence showed the area was already damaged, and Hearn’s team moved to ban the office from bringing another case in August. At an unrelated press conference last month, Pirro declined to answer several questions from reporters about her handling of the Reflecting Pool case.
尽管皮罗办公室自己的证据——即赫恩涉嫌触及的倒影池部分已经受损，且他们无法证明损失超过1000美元——使得再次提起重罪诉讼成为不可能，但该办公室仍希望保留理论上提起诉讼的能力。“未来究竟还能发生什么起诉？”埃德尔曼在听证会上问道。
Pirro’s office wanted to maintain its ability to bring a theoretical case, even though its own evidence — that the section of the Reflecting Pool that Hearn allegedly touched was already damaged, and they can’t prove more than $1,000 in damage — would make bringing another felony case impossible. “What future prosecution could even occur?”Edelman asked at the hearing.
“这我不知道，”美国哥伦比亚特区联邦检察官办公室的资深官员迈克尔·斯彭斯（Michael Spence）说。
“That I don’t know,” said Michael Spence, a career official in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
法官追问：“给我举一个可能发生的例子，有什么能改变这个根本上有缺陷的案子？哪怕在理论上，可能会有什么？”
“Give me an example of one possible thing that could happen” to change the fundamentally flawed case, the judge asked. “Even theoretically, what could there be?”
斯彭斯承认他给不出令人满意的答案。他补充说，联邦检察官办公室“截至目前”没有对赫恩展开调查，但也表示情况可能会发生变化。
Spence conceded he had no satisfactory answer. He added that the U.S. Attorney’s Office had no investigation going into Hearn “as of this second” but said that could change.
埃德尔曼指出，很难找到一个与赫恩的案件情况相似的案例，并询问斯彭斯该如何看待特朗普那些要求对赫恩进行起诉的言论；皮罗的办公室也承认这些起诉毫无根据。斯彭斯表示，总统的言论本身就已经说明了一切。赫恩的律师史蒂夫·莱文指出，检方“根本没有足够的证据”来起诉赫恩，政府为了讨好总统而仓促地提起公诉，同时还误导了大陪审团。
Edelman noted that it was going to be pretty difficult to find a case with similar circumstances to Hearn’s case, and asked Spence how he was supposed to look at Trump’s statements calling for a prosecution that Pirro’s office admits was meritless. The president’s statements, Spence said, “speak for themselves.”Steve Levin, an attorney for Hearn, said prosecutors “had no case” and that the government abused its prosecutorial discretion by rushing to indict Hearn to please the president, misleading a grand jury along the way.
莱文说：“这就是恶意行为的体现。”他问道：既然这个案件已经通过了起诉程序，赫恩又该如何信任大陪审团的裁决呢？莱文表示：“如果再出现另一个类似的案件，赫恩根本无法相信大陪审团会做出公正的判断。”莱文认为，皮罗的办公室试图让这个已被证明毫无根据的重罪指控继续存在下去，但这根本不符合公众利益；“他们已经放弃了这个案件，没有任何办法能够挽救这个案子了。”
“That’s where the bad faith comes into play,” Levin said. How is Hearn supposed to trust the grand jury process, Levin asked, given that the case got through before? “There’s no confidence that Mr. Hearn has that the grand jury will do the right thing” if another case was presented,” he said. Pirro’s office, Levin argued, is trying to keep a “discredited felony accusation on life support,” and doing so served no public interest. “There is nothing that can save the case they dismissed,” Levin said.
莱文强调：“政府基本上已经承认这个案件无法被重新提起。”不过斯彭斯认为，大陪审团的程序仍然可以保护赫恩免受恶意起诉的侵害。斯彭斯辩称：“政府在这个案件中的行为是出于善意。”
“The government has basically acknowledged there is nothing that can revive this case.”But Spence said the grand jury process would still give Hearn protection from a bad faith prosecution. “The government did act in good faith in this case,” Spence argued.