福井ふくい再審さいしんで前川まえかわ彰あきら司つかささんに無罪むざい判決はんけつ今後こんご検察けんさつが上告じょうこくするか焦点しょうてん

39 years ago, in a retrial for the case in which a female junior high school student was murdered in Fukui City, Akiji Maekawa was acquitted on the 18th.

The ruling harshly criticized the investigative authorities for allegedly leading the testimonies of those involved, and the focus now is on whether the prosecution will appeal.

In a retrial of the case where a third-year junior high school girl was murdered in Fukui City 39 years ago in 1986, the Kanazawa branch of the Nagoya High Court acquitted Mr. Shoji Maekawa on the 18th.

The ruling pointed out that regarding the eyewitness testimonies of acquaintances, which had been considered decisive evidence for a guilty verdict, there remains doubt that these testimonies were shaped as a result of improper actions such as guidance by investigative authorities who had reached a dead end, and that the individuals involved gave statements in line with those actions, making any of these testimonies unreliable. Furthermore, it harshly criticized, stating, The improper and unjust activities of the prosecution and police are so serious that they could undermine trust in the entire criminal justice system.

Nearly 40 years have passed since the incident, and Mr. Maekawa, who was 21 years old at the time of his arrest, is now 60. The defense team has requested that the prosecution refrain from appealing to the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial should not be prolonged any further.

Nagoya High Public Prosecutors Office stated in response to inquiries, We would like to carefully examine the content of the ruling and consider our response after consulting with higher authorities.

The deadline for the appeal is August 1, and the focus will be on whether the prosecution will file an appeal or whether Mr. Maekawas acquittal will be finalized without an appeal.

One of the pieces of evidence for the conviction was the testimony of an acquaintance of Maekawa, who said they saw Maekawa with blood on his chest.

In the ruling regarding this matter, it was revealed through the police investigation report disclosed by the prosecution the year before last that the striking scene from the music program, which the acquaintance claimed to have seen on the day of the incident, was in fact not broadcast on that day. The court acknowledged that the police, based on incorrect broadcast dates and content, led the acquaintance to testify that they had watched the music program on the day of the incident.

It was pointed out that, under the guidance of the police officers, testimonies about experiences that never actually happened were being fabricated.

Furthermore, after this acquaintance testified in court, a police officer gave them cash as a wedding gift, and it would not be unreasonable to regard this as a token of appreciation for persuading the acquaintance to testify in accordance with the statements made during the investigation, and for the acquaintance complying and testifying in court.

He criticized it as an unjust act that betrays the publics trust in the duties of police officers.

The motive for the leading questions was a dead end in the investigation. Regarding the motive for such leading questions, the ruling stated, It can be inferred that the police and prosecutors strongly wanted to secure a conviction against Mr. Maekawa, feeling they had reached a dead end in the investigation and in proving their case in court, and thus had a strong intention to lead the witness.

On top of that, he pointed out, The prosecution claims that it is absurd to say that the police led the witnesses statements in the retrial, but when looking at all the evidence as a whole, there arises a suspicion that an investigation, which the prosecution calls absurd, was actually carried out.

Prosecutorial and police misconduct undermines trust in the criminal justice system. Furthermore, the ruling stated that the prosecution failed to disclose serious errors regarding the broadcast date and content of the music program in the original trial, and considering that no convincing argument was made on this point even in the retrial, it cannot simply be excused as ignorance. It is unavoidable to say that there was an unfair intention to conceal unfavorable facts.

If this error had been properly corrected, there is a strong possibility that a not-guilty verdict could have been finalized in the original trial even before the retrial request.

The prosecutions litigation activities, frankly speaking, are deeply disappointing in light of their responsibilities as representatives of the public interest, he harshly criticized.

And finally, The improper and unjust activities of the prosecution and police are serious matters that could undermine trust in the entire criminal justice system.

The prosecutions argument in the retrial can only be described as one that turns a blind eye to these wrongful acts, and it is absolutely unacceptable.

Discussion on the review of the retrial system progresses Regarding retrial procedures, there have been calls for a review, as lengthy hearings hinder the relief of victims of false accusations. Currently, discussions on legal revisions are underway at the Legislative Council.

One factor contributing to the prolongation is the lack of established rules regarding the disclosure of evidence that the prosecution has not submitted to the court.

In Mr. Maekawas case, the investigation report that became the decisive factor in granting a retrial was not disclosed during the first retrial request proceedings after 2004. It was finally disclosed the year before last, during the second retrial request proceedings after 2022, prompted by the court.

In the case of Iwao Hakamada, whose acquittal was finalized in a retrial, it took about 30 years from the initial request for retrial until important evidence was disclosed, and as a result, it took more than half a century to clear his false conviction.

In response to this situation, the Ministry of Justice consulted the Legislative Council to consider revising the law, and from April this year, discussions began in a specialized subcommittee consisting of experts, judges, officials from the Ministry of Justice and the Public Prosecutors Office, as well as committee members who are lawyers.

In the four meetings held so far, there has been no objection to establishing rules for evidence disclosure, but opinions are divided regarding the scope of what should be disclosed.

Among them, a former prosecutor who was interviewed as a witness said, I cannot agree with allowing broader disclosure of evidence than in ordinary trials.

It should be limited to the extent that is deemed relevant and necessary for the court to decide whether to grant a retrial, he argued.

In response to these views, the lawyer member stated, Those seeking a retrial do not know in advance whether the prosecutor has evidence pointing to innocence.

If we limit the scope, there is a risk of regressing from current practices, he argued, claiming that important evidence that has been disclosed so far may no longer come to light.

The subcommittee of the Legislative Council plans to further discuss issues such as the way evidence is disclosed, and aims to compile a draft outline for legal revisions to be submitted to the Minister of Justice.