Conan: The Mechanic

"This is just nonsense!" After carefully examining a small part of the relevant evidence, Mao Lilan frowned and expressed quite dissatisfaction. "The police actually forged the test results in advance before the results of the physical evidence test came out, and then used them in the next day's trial?" She was referring to the status of the "five pieces of clothing" as one of the criminal evidence: 1967 On August 31, the police found a sack in the No. 1 miso brewing barrel of the miso factory, and the sack contained five pieces of clothing. It is worth noting that this barrel was also inspected in the previous search, and at that time. No abnormality was found.

What is more worthy of attention is the reaction of the prosecutor-the prosecutor immediately revised the content of the previous indictment and related statements, and used these five newly released clothes as the criminal clothes that Hakada Yan wore when he committed the crime, and on September 11th The court filed an application for evidence to start the seventeenth public trial.

On the second day of filing the application, that is, at about 9:00 a.m. on September 12, the prosecutor found a piece of cloth when they searched Hakada Yan’s hometown. To be precise, the cloth head and the black trousers in the five pieces of clothing belong to the same color and texture: according to later records, the five pieces of clothing were still completely stiff when they were taken out of the miso brewing barrel on September 12. state, it is impossible to judge the quality at all.

A more wonderful thing happened later: on the day when this evidence was discovered, on September 12, the Shizuoka District Court suddenly designated the public trial date at 2:00 pm the next day. The practice of two days is completely absurd behavior that has never been seen before.

After that, on September 13, in court, the prosecutor submitted the piece of cloth found in Hakata's hometown as the only core evidence to prove that the five pieces of clothing belonged to Hakata, and so neatly gave up the previous claim that it was Hakamada Yan. The **** pajamas worn by the murderers. As for Hakamada, the defense lawyer actually chose to recognize such an unusual chain of evidence, and did not raise any doubts.

If the previous thing was just strange, the following thing is absurd. On the spot in court on September 13, the prosecutor swore that the cloth head and the trousers in the five pieces of clothing were made of the same material, but the five pieces of clothing were not officially identified until September 20, and the comparison between the cloth head and the trousers was completed. The identification was not even completed until December 4, more than two months later. At the seventeenth public trial on September 13, prosecutors were unable to confirm the relationship between the cloth head and the trousers at all, and when the five items of clothing were claimed to belong to Hakata on September 11, the only one that was later used to establish this view Evidence "Bubou" has not even been found. After the cloth head was discovered, the court very quickly set the time of the public trial to the nearest time.

Such behavior, in the eyes of bystanders, must be a little hesitant: perhaps, the discovery of "Bu Tou" is a long time ago for the prosecutor where the prosecutor is located, the police and the court where the police department is located. Know what's going to happen? If we move forward like this, five pieces of clothing that were not there during the first search suddenly appeared in front of the prosecutor. Is it actually just perjury that the prosecutor directed and acted?

At the same time, what role does the court play?

"If it wasn't for this case, Eri wouldn't have taken it," Mouri Kogoro's mood was calm now, and he didn't seem surprised by this situation. "Don't think that prosecutors must be good people. Dad has been a criminal policeman and knows their methods. As for the judges...it may be a structural problem. The quality of their own trials is far from high, and there are often shortages. Judges who are experienced or not sharp enough are induced by aggressive and experienced prosecutors to end up making cases that are too pro-prosecutorial."

Any kind of confrontation must be composed of three parts: the players, the rules and the referee. The same is true for the court. For both the prosecution and the defense, the relevant rules and regulations and the tribunal are composed of three parts. Generally speaking, as a referee, you must be familiar with the rules and have enough experience, otherwise it is easy to make mistakes. Aside from chess and other sports that are relatively easy to judge, most competitions require referees with actual combat experience to make judgments - perhaps sumo referees can act as referees without actual combat experience, but However, there is still a collegial system of judges to hand over the final judgement to those with actual combat experience.

But at the same time, the final jurisdiction in the court is in the hands of judges who have absolutely no practical experience.

Yes, the judge is actually an extremely inexperienced role - whether it is experience in prosecution and defense, or experience in common sense.

Japan's criminal procedure adopts the so-called "free testimony", compared to the early "legal evidence system" (complete compliance with legal provisions, similar to the legal robot that we jokingly call now), which was completely constrained by the law~www. readwn.com~ is a "tyrant" system that has almost no relevant restrictions and leaves all discretionary power to the judge's personal judgment. If such a system is managed by experienced and wise judges, it can naturally accomplish its mission quite well, but once the judges are not able to control such cases, just like the ancient ignorant rulers were unable to control the country, then there will be serious problems.

For example, Japanese judges often do not have the opportunity to communicate with the defendant, and the expression that the defendant can complete in court is quite limited, so the information that can be obtained from the defense is not only lacking in strength, but also limited in content. In contrast, they have long been accustomed to logically rigorous, well-organized, and well-structured confessions and investigations from the prosecution and the police. Let me ask, one side's evidence is fragile and intermittent, while the other side's work is like a regular script with no failures. How can this prevent the judges from reading the confession investigation before the trial and have a pre-position in their hearts? You must know that the only purpose of prosecutors is to promote a guilty verdict, and in principle, their confession investigation document will not mention the content that is beneficial to the defendant, which makes the confession investigation document an unimaginable advantage for Japanese prosecutors. One of three reasons.

Of course, this may be the most worthy of reflection, but it is by no means the most important one.

————

In fact, during the Hakata Yan case, the status of the prosecution and the defense was even more unequal, because in 1994, the principle of litigiousness that had become an iron law was after the 1973 Kofu arson judgment and the 1975 Shiratori case special appeal dismissal decision Only as iron rules, and the 1966 Hakata Yan case has not enjoyed such benefits, the prosecutor only needs to be able to provide evidence that can impress the judge more than the defense, in order to be considered established.