Foley Square

Lecture at U.S. Consulate General, Naha

Lecture at University of Ryukyus Graduate School of Law, Naha

Lecture at U.S. Consulate General, Sapporo

Will Saiban-in System Make Police More Accountable?

The Asahi Shimbun reported today:

TAKAOKA, Toyama Prefecture--The first hearing Wednesday in the retrial of a man wrongly imprisoned for rape showed that police and prosecutors withheld evidence proving he was innocent. The 40-year-old defendant was convicted of two counts of rape and attempted rape in 2002 and spent 25 months in prison. "I did not commit those acts," the man told the court. Demonstrating the bizarre nature of the retrial, prosecutors actually admitted they had no case and that the defendant, who wishes to remain anonymous, was innocent of the charges just as he had claimed. It was not a complete victory for the defendant, however. Satoshi Fujita, presiding judge at the Takaoka branch of the Toyama District Court, rejected a request by defense lawyers for police officers who originally questioned the man to testify in court.

Asahi Shimbun Article about my Work

Download asahi_shimbun200706201.pdf

Today, the Asahi Shimbun profiled me in its daily ひと column.

裁判員制度をサポートする米国の弁護士　ロバート・プレクトさん 　戦後初めて、ふつうの市民が裁判に加わり有罪無罪を決めるようになる日本で何が起こるか——。それを直接知りたくて、東京に居を移して１年半になる。 　ミシガン大…… (2007/06/20)

"Why did my government do this?"

Following one of my talks about the saiban-in system in Tokyo, a Japanese woman in the audience exclaimed "why did my government do this? The current system is just fine!" The Asahi Shimbun's editorial today entitled "Japan must learn to better convey its opinion on issues to the world" isn't about the saiban-in system, but it identifies a problem that the new jury system may help adresss:

[L]et's face facts: For Japan to have a diplomatic strategy that conveys its views to the world, our society must allow -- and encourage -- free, uninhibited and educated discussion. Is this guaranteed today in our schools and places of work? Or have we as a nation become too passive, too accepting of inward-looking thinking as the norm, smothering all dissent? Are our people being trained as they should be to debate with and persuade those who do not share our values?

Missoulian - UM associate helps steer Japan's judiciary

Link: Missoulian - UM associate helps steer Japan's judiciary.

TOKYO - With the assistance of a New York lawyer associated with the University of Montana, Japan's criminal court cases will soon work their way through a trial system resembling - at least in part - that of the United States. The most important change in the works: Jurors will be randomly recruited among the Japanese citizenry to serve for one trial, said Robert Precht, co-director of the Juries and Democracy Program at UM's Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center. Yet court decisions will still be rendered in a very different way in Japan, he said. Presently, Japanese criminal cases are presided over by a panel of three judges, who decide guilt or innocence, as well as sentencing.

Starting in May 2009, the country will implement what it calls “saiban-in,” a panel of three judges and six lay citizen jurors, who will hear evidence and then vote on guilt or innocence. They will decide together on sentencing. Precht considers the shift in rendering criminal justice here nothing short of revolutionary for Japanese citizens. All of a sudden, they will start receiving summons to come to court, serve on saiban-in panels and make decisions that can literally determine the life or death of fellow citizens.

Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan, Tokyo

About 25 correspondents from various news organizations were in attendance for my talk "Japan's New Jury System: Important Consequences for Asia." I had invited as my guest a prominent judge. We both expected that he would sit in the audience, but the talk's organizers suggested he sit with me at the dais. This was a good move. After my talk, the reporters had many questions. Although the judge originally expected to be a guest, he graciously agreed to help me answer the reporters' questions. Indeed, he was the real authority in the room.

One Japanese participant said that bringing back a jury system in Japan would be useless because current police practices -- including prolonged detention of suspects and forced confessions -- would defeat the reforms. I noted that the new system may actually lead to reforms in police practices. In cases of confessions, police officers will now have to come to court and explain to ordinary citizens the circumstances in which the police extracted the confession. In addition, there seems to be a growing feeling in Japan that in in order to present confessions to lay people, the confessions should be videotaped. Videotaped confessions would be a huge reform -- one that, alas, has not been implemented in most jurisdictions in the U.S.

Fukuoka Bar Association, Fukuoka

The audience was very interesting -- a group of about 50 people composed of defense lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and law students. Knowing how segregated the legal community in Japan is, I was quite astonished to see such a diverse group. I don't think I've ever been to an event in Japan where defense lawyers, prosecutors, and judges willingly sat together.

Hyogo Bar Association, Kobe

My talk, "Effective Trial Techniques in front of Lay Citizens: Suggestions for Japanese Lawyers" was designed to acquaint Japanese lawyers with some of the trial techniques American lawyers use in the courtroom. With the advent of the saiban-in system, trial practice will radically change in Japan. Currently, most trials are conducted on the basis of written records. Lawyers submit written reports to the three-judge panel, and the panel renders a decision, often after several years. The saiban-in system will require concentrated trials, conducted through live testimony. Japanese lawyer must learn a new skills-set: how to present live testimony and persuade ordinary citizens. One of the questions from the lawyers was what's the difference between opening statements and summations in terms of the strategy. It's a good question, and I hadn't really thought about it. I said that opening was like a table of contents -- what you expect the evidence to show. The summation is the argument based on what the evidence has been. I said it should resemble a Kabuki drama.