Research on the Fact-Finding in Criminal Procedure and the Analysis of the Constitution of Evidences

Research Project

Project/Area Number	10620054
Research Category	Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
Allocation Type	Single-year Grants
Section	一般
Research Field	Criminal law
Research Institution	TOHOKU UNIVERSITY
Principal Investigator	KAWASAKI Hideaki Faculty of Law, Tohoku University, Professor, 法学部, 教授 (30127485)
Project Period (FY)	1998 – 1999
Project Status	Completed (Fiscal Year 1999)
Budget Amount *help	¥2,000,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,000,000) Fiscal Year 1999: ¥900,000 (Direct Cost: ¥900,000) Fiscal Year 1998: ¥1,100,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,100,000)
Keywords	Fact-Finding / Criminal Procedure / Analysis of the Constitution of Evidences / Retrial / In dubio pro reo / Beyond a Reasonable Doubt / 適正化 / 可視化
Research Abstract	Ways to analyze the reasoning of convictions in deciding whether to grant applications for a retrial under the Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 425, no. 6 have developed since the 1970's. The purpose of this study is whether similar methods should be used at trials as well and how trials should proceed, if they should. According to the rule, "in dubio pro reo", the prosecution must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. It produces evidence favorable to its case, but this is not enough for that proof. Findings of guilt are not simply a subjective decision ; they should have much objectivity, which will safeguard defendants' right to fair trial. In this respect, how the evidence leads to the conviction is extremely important, and therefore, the prosecution should show its own version in its opening and closing addresses at the trial. It can change the reasoning to some extent if it finds it necessary as the trials goes along, but the judge should be bound to the reasoning it has sumitted. The judge cannot find some evidence crucial for the defendant's conviction on the contrary to the prosecution's submission. Without these arrangements the defense cannot understand exactly which points they should focus on in refuting its counterpart's case ; defendants will be still at a risk of being found guilty with another reasoning, even if the defense has successfully rebutted what seems to be the prosecution's case.