BACKGROUND: "The rare post-humous 'retrial' granted recently to Hiromu Sakahara has once again, focused attention on Japan's existing 'retrial' system, under which it is almost impossible to remedy a miscarriage of justice, even for a death sentence as in the Iwao Hakamata case which is mentioned in this post under the heading, "Judge who ordered retrial for Hakamata (commonly referred to as 'The Eastern Rubin Hurricane Carter HL) calls for reform," As noted in a previous post of this Blog (October 8, 2024): "The prosecution has announced that it will not appeal the recent ruling by the Shizuoka District Court, which acquitted Iwao Hakamada, who had been sentenced to death for a 1966 murder case involving a family of four. This decision solidifies Hakamada's acquittal. In the case, which dates back to June 1966, the bodies of four family members from a miso manufacturing company in Shizuoka Prefecture were discovered. Hakamada, now 88, was arrested and indicted, with the death sentence confirmed in 1980. Hakamada, who maintained his innocence, was granted a retrial in 2014 and released after nearly 48 years in prison. During the retrial, which started in October of last year at the Shizuoka District Court, prosecutors once again sought the death penalty, while the defense argued that investigators had fabricated several pieces of evidence to frame Hakamada. The court sided with the defense, ruling on September 26 that some of the evidence used for conviction had indeed been fabricated, resulting in Hakamada’s acquittal."
----------------------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Attorney Hiroaki Murayama was summoned to the Lower House Judicial Affairs Committee on that day to offer his opinions on the matter. Murayama was the presiding judge at the Shizuoka District Court in 2014 who granted a retrial to Iwao Hakamata, now 90. Hakamata, who had spent decades on death row, was acquitted of the murder charges in the retrial in 2024. “Working on Mr. Hakamata’s case changed my view of life as a judge,” Murayama said at the Diet committee. “Although many judges were involved, they failed to correct the erroneous guilty verdict. Based on that reflection, I have been committed to reforming the retrial law.”
--------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Drawing on his experience as a judge, Murayama said he most strongly emphasizes the need to change “evidence disclosure” rules. Under the current system, defense lawyers must submit “clear new evidence that should lead to a not guilty verdict” to open the door to a retrial. Lawyers have complained that prosecutors may be in possession of such evidence, but the defense team may not know about such evidence if it is not submitted at trial."
-----------------------------------------------
STORY: "Judge who ordered retrial for Hakamata calls for reform," published by The Asahi Shinbum, on June 10,
GIST: "Lawmakers seeking to close loopholes and speed up the legal process to protect victims of wrongful convictions received favorable testimony from two figures at the forefront of correcting an infamous miscarriage of justice.
Representatives of the Centrist Reform Alliance (Chudo) and the Democratic Party for the People (DPP) on June 9 agreed to seek revisions of the government’s proposed bill on the retrial system, including easing the rules on evidence disclosure.
However, the government and ruling parties have opposed the changes pushed by the opposition parties.
Attorney Hiroaki Murayama was summoned to the Lower House Judicial Affairs Committee on that day to offer his opinions on the matter.
Murayama was the presiding judge at the Shizuoka District Court in 2014 who granted a retrial to Iwao Hakamata, now 90.
Hakamata, who had spent decades on death row, was acquitted of the murder charges in the retrial in 2024.
“Working on Mr. Hakamata’s case changed my view of life as a judge,” Murayama said at the Diet committee. “Although many judges were involved, they failed to correct the erroneous guilty verdict. Based on that reflection, I have been committed to reforming the retrial law.”
Hakamata’s ordeal led in part to the government-proposed bill to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure and reform the retrial system.
However, the bill has been criticized, even within the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, as woefully insufficient in reducing prosecutors’ powers, which have been blamed for the delays in starting retrials.
Drawing on his experience as a judge, Murayama said he most strongly emphasizes the need to change “evidence disclosure” rules.
Under the current system, defense lawyers must submit “clear new evidence that should lead to a not guilty verdict” to open the door to a retrial.
Lawyers have complained that prosecutors may be in possession of such evidence, but the defense team may not know about such evidence if it is not submitted at trial.
The government’s bill would introduce a system allowing courts to order prosecutors to submit evidence that was not disclosed in the original trial that led to a guilty verdict.
However, strict requirements exist under the bill, such as proving relevance to the grounds for requesting a retrial.
Murayama said that in cases leading to retrials, the defense side is inevitably best positioned to assess the value of evidence and should be allowed to directly examine a broad range of such materials.
He argued that provisions are needed to allow judges to order evidence disclosure without being constrained by strict relevance requirements.
The Justice Ministry said during the Diet deliberations that courts can “recommend” that prosecutors submit evidence, as they can under the existing law, even for items not covered by the proposed new submission order system.
“The existing practical operation is not being denied,” a ministry official said.
However, Murayama warned that such recommendations lack legal binding and that “prosecutors may resist” submitting even evidence that had previously been disclosed.
After the committee session, lawmakers from Chudo and the DPP compiled three proposed revisions to the evidence disclosure rules.
They are: creating a provision that allows courts to order direct disclosure of important evidence to the defense side; creating a provision to require prosecutors to provide a list of evidence; and deleting a provision in the government’s bill that prohibits the use of disclosed evidence for unrelated purposes.
Regarding the last revision, the lawmakers suggested allowing courts to impose restrictions depending on the content instead of issuing a blanket prohibition.
They plan to seek support from Sanseito, which holds seats on the Judicial Affairs Committee.
SISTER’S TESTIMONY
Hideko Hakamata, 93, who never gave up in her long fight to save her younger brother, Iwao Hakamata, also gave her opinion at the committee.
“I do not think only Iwao should be saved. Please ensure there are no loopholes in this bill,” she said.
Iwao was convicted of multiple murders in Shizuoka Prefecture in the 1960s. It took him 58 years to clear his name in the 2024 retrial.
But during his 48 years behind bars, he developed mental illnesses.
“Why did it take so long?” his sister asked the lawmakers. “I believe it is because there are flaws in the law.”
The evidence that led to Hakamata’s acquittal was disclosed 29 years after his first request for a retrial.
“Thanks to evidence disclosure, Iwao is alive today. Fair trials should be conducted with all evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, fully disclosed,” she said.
GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO BUDGE
The LDP and coalition partner Nippon Ishin (Japan Innovation Party) currently hold more than two-thirds of the seats in the Lower House, but they fall four seats short of a majority in the Upper House.
For this reason, the government and ruling parties have been urging leaders of the DPP to support the government bill.
However, DPP leader Yuichiro Tamaki has withheld his backing of the bill.
“At this point, we are not in a position to approve it,” he said at a news conference on June 9. “We want to seek further action from the government, including amendments to the bill and clearer explanations.”
DPP officials have been negotiating with the government and ruling parties to revise the bill, but there has been no progress so far, sources said.
The government and ruling parties aim to pass the bill in the Lower House by mid-June.""
The entire story can be read at:
GIST: "Lawmakers seeking to close loopholes and speed up the legal process to protect victims of wrongful convictions received favorable testimony from two figures at the forefront of correcting an infamous miscarriage of justice.
Representatives of the Centrist Reform Alliance (Chudo) and the Democratic Party for the People (DPP) on June 9 agreed to seek revisions of the government’s proposed bill on the retrial system, including easing the rules on evidence disclosure.
However, the government and ruling parties have opposed the changes pushed by the opposition parties.
Attorney Hiroaki Murayama was summoned to the Lower House Judicial Affairs Committee on that day to offer his opinions on the matter.
Murayama was the presiding judge at the Shizuoka District Court in 2014 who granted a retrial to Iwao Hakamata, now 90.
Hakamata, who had spent decades on death row, was acquitted of the murder charges in the retrial in 2024.
“Working on Mr. Hakamata’s case changed my view of life as a judge,” Murayama said at the Diet committee. “Although many judges were involved, they failed to correct the erroneous guilty verdict. Based on that reflection, I have been committed to reforming the retrial law.”
Hakamata’s ordeal led in part to the government-proposed bill to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure and reform the retrial system.
However, the bill has been criticized, even within the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, as woefully insufficient in reducing prosecutors’ powers, which have been blamed for the delays in starting retrials.
Drawing on his experience as a judge, Murayama said he most strongly emphasizes the need to change “evidence disclosure” rules.
Under the current system, defense lawyers must submit “clear new evidence that should lead to a not guilty verdict” to open the door to a retrial.
Lawyers have complained that prosecutors may be in possession of such evidence, but the defense team may not know about such evidence if it is not submitted at trial.
The government’s bill would introduce a system allowing courts to order prosecutors to submit evidence that was not disclosed in the original trial that led to a guilty verdict.
However, strict requirements exist under the bill, such as proving relevance to the grounds for requesting a retrial.
Murayama said that in cases leading to retrials, the defense side is inevitably best positioned to assess the value of evidence and should be allowed to directly examine a broad range of such materials.
He argued that provisions are needed to allow judges to order evidence disclosure without being constrained by strict relevance requirements.
The Justice Ministry said during the Diet deliberations that courts can “recommend” that prosecutors submit evidence, as they can under the existing law, even for items not covered by the proposed new submission order system.
“The existing practical operation is not being denied,” a ministry official said.
However, Murayama warned that such recommendations lack legal binding and that “prosecutors may resist” submitting even evidence that had previously been disclosed.
After the committee session, lawmakers from Chudo and the DPP compiled three proposed revisions to the evidence disclosure rules.
They are: creating a provision that allows courts to order direct disclosure of important evidence to the defense side; creating a provision to require prosecutors to provide a list of evidence; and deleting a provision in the government’s bill that prohibits the use of disclosed evidence for unrelated purposes.
Regarding the last revision, the lawmakers suggested allowing courts to impose restrictions depending on the content instead of issuing a blanket prohibition.
They plan to seek support from Sanseito, which holds seats on the Judicial Affairs Committee.
SISTER’S TESTIMONY
Hideko Hakamata, 93, who never gave up in her long fight to save her younger brother, Iwao Hakamata, also gave her opinion at the committee.
“I do not think only Iwao should be saved. Please ensure there are no loopholes in this bill,” she said.
Iwao was convicted of multiple murders in Shizuoka Prefecture in the 1960s. It took him 58 years to clear his name in the 2024 retrial.
But during his 48 years behind bars, he developed mental illnesses.
“Why did it take so long?” his sister asked the lawmakers. “I believe it is because there are flaws in the law.”
The evidence that led to Hakamata’s acquittal was disclosed 29 years after his first request for a retrial.
“Thanks to evidence disclosure, Iwao is alive today. Fair trials should be conducted with all evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, fully disclosed,” she said.
GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO BUDGE
The LDP and coalition partner Nippon Ishin (Japan Innovation Party) currently hold more than two-thirds of the seats in the Lower House, but they fall four seats short of a majority in the Upper House.
For this reason, the government and ruling parties have been urging leaders of the DPP to support the government bill.
However, DPP leader Yuichiro Tamaki has withheld his backing of the bill.
“At this point, we are not in a position to approve it,” he said at a news conference on June 9. “We want to seek further action from the government, including amendments to the bill and clearer explanations.”
DPP officials have been negotiating with the government and ruling parties to revise the bill, but there has been no progress so far, sources said.
The government and ruling parties aim to pass the bill in the Lower House by mid-June.""
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;
