Criminal Trial and Evidence Law under the Japanese New Popular Participation System (Saiban-in System)
| Project/Area Number |
17530053
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Criminal law
|
|---|
| Research Institution | The University of Tokyo (2007)
Nagoya University (2005-2006) |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
OSAWA Yutaka The University of Tokyo, Graduate School for Law and Politics, Professor (60194130)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2005 – 2007
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2007)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥2,310,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,100,000、Indirect Cost: ¥210,000)
Fiscal Year 2007: ¥910,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000、Indirect Cost: ¥210,000)
Fiscal Year 2006: ¥700,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000)
Fiscal Year 2005: ¥700,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | saiban-in / evidence law / criminal trial / hearsay rule / confession / admissibility of evidence / 同意書面 / 検察官面前調書 / 合意書面 |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
Under the new Japanese popular participation system in criminal trial (saiban-in system), it is necessary to make the trial speedy and conducted in such a manner as the saiban-in understand the case and proceeding easily. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to sort out the true contested issues and to select the indispensable evidence, which are presented to the trial, strictly. That causes the reexamination of the the current practice of criminal trial and evidence in many points. This research project focused on the several topics regarding (1) the system to sort out the contested issues and select the indispensable evidence and (2) the rule on the admissibility of evidence, and considered the problems, found out in the reexamination of the disputes heretofore, which should be resolved for the smooth administration of the saiban-in system.
Regarding(1), the count(soin) system in the indictment and the koso appeal system are focused and it is considered how the system to sort out the contested issues and the best evidence combined with the restriction of producing evidence thereafter reflects upon the public prosecutor's authority to change the count during the trial proceeding and upon the appeal court's power to examine evidence not produced to the first instance court.
Regarding (2), mainly the admissibility of documentary evidence is considered, focusing on the hearsay exceptions provided in the Art. 326 and 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) and ones provided in the Art. 321 Sec. 1 Nr.2 of the CCP. The legal standard for the admissibility of confession, scientific evidence and illegally obtained evidence is also reexamined.
|
Report
(4 results)
Research Products
(14 results)
