Prosecutors hid essential evidence in Fukui murder case, report finds

A detailed report on the Fukui case revealed that prosecutors were aware of crucial evidence that could have changed Shoji Maekawa’s conviction. The Nagoya Prosecutor General’s Office released, on the 10th, the results of an investigation focused on the conduct of the prosecutors responsible for the trial of a homicide that occurred in 1986, highlighting a serious failure in judicial transparency. The analysis highlights the importance of discussing the review of the new trials system to ensure the disclosure of all evidence, restoring public confidence in justice and preventing unjustifiable delays.

The document points out that at least five prosecutors involved in the first hearing of the request for a new trial knew of the existence of elements that would be decisive for the acquittal of the victim’s family. The report’s conclusion is clear: the prior presentation of this evidence to the court could have led to a decision in favor of a new trial, reinforcing the need for constant reflection on these practices.

At the heart of the case was an “investigation report” that already at the time of the first trial challenged the conviction. This document demonstrated a fundamental inconsistency: the broadcast date of a television program, mentioned in a crucial prosecution statement, was incorrect. However, the responsible prosecutor chose not to release the report and maintained his insistence on Maekawa’s conviction.

Shoji Maekawa was initially acquitted in the first trial, but was later sentenced to seven years in prison in a second case, a sentence he served from 1997 onwards. His legal journey was marked by twists and turns.

In 2011, the Kanazawa Branch of the Nagoya High Court accepted Maekawa’s first request for a new trial. However, the prosecution contested the concession, claiming that the investigation report had not been formally presented as evidence, which led to the annulment of the favorable decision.

The process to complete the retrial took another 13 years, a significant period of waiting for justice.

The findings of the recent investigation indicate that at least five prosecutors who acted on the first *habeas corpus* request were aware of the discrepancies between the investigation report and the evidence previously presented. Even so, they considered the report as just more evidence and concluded that the conviction remained unshakable, not adopting “appropriate corrective measures”, such as presenting or disclosing the document.

The investigation also highlighted that, if the report had been presented to the court, the credibility of the testimonies of those involved would have been seriously questioned, weakening the evidentiary structure. This situation could have resulted in the granting of a new trial at that time. The final report emphasizes that objections should not be raised without taking appropriate corrective measures, and that the situation requires in-depth reflection.

Key prosecutor refused to testify in Fukui case investigation

The report further pointed out that the lead prosecutor involved in the first *habeas corpus* request also knew about the discrepancies in the content of the investigation report. Although the investigation team interviewed 17 prosecutors, this particular professional did not appear to testify, leaving important gaps.

The prosecutor in question stated that the reason for not taking corrective action was “to avoid a situation in which some of the evidence would be found to be incorrect and some of the evidence would be lost.” This justification raises questions about the integrity of the process.

Hama Katsuhiko, deputy chief prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, expressed public grief. He commented: “We sincerely regret having caused public distrust in the prosecution and will strive to take appropriate action.”

In an official statement, the Public Prosecutor’s Office reaffirmed its commitment: “We will strive even harder to exercise the power of prosecution appropriately, so that we can fully live up to the public’s trust.”

Victim criticized the depth of the investigation into the case

Commenting on the verification results, Maekawa expressed a bittersweet feeling. “It does not appear to be a complete investigation, just a follow-up to the retrial sentence. It is not satisfactory, but it is better to do than not to do it. I would like to commend the fact that they carried out the verification,” he said.

Early in the investigation, Maekawa had expressed the hope that it would “illuminate the darkness of justice.”

After about two months, he still feels that the complete truth has not come to light. He used a metaphor to describe his perception: “A servant may have entered the dark room with a candle, but it is absurd to say that the room suddenly became illuminated.” For him, the case itself remains without due clarification.

Maekawa expressed deep frustration with the prosecutors’ conduct. “At the first hearing, five prosecutors noticed inconsistencies, but the investigation report was considered unnecessary to be released. What are they talking about? The testimonies (which supported the guilty verdict) no longer connect”, he said.

Amid the Diet’s deliberations on revising the retrial system, he expressed his hope: “I hope this will be an opportunity for the public to consider the need for a system that compels the disclosure of evidence.”

Maekawa is scheduled to appear as a witness on [unspecified month] 14 before the House of Councilors Judicial Affairs Committee, which is reviewing a government bill to improve the retrial system. The prosecution’s stance regarding the disclosure of evidence in retrial procedures should once again be a central point of questioning.