Before the lay judge system was introduced in May, Japanese courts adopted pretrial procedures to enable the prosecution, the defense counsel and the court to narrow down evidence and points of argument in a case to speed up criminal trials. A recent Supreme Court ruling shows its determination in getting these procedures to take root.

On Oct. 16 the Supreme Court sent back to the Hiroshima High Court the case of a Peruvian man charged with sexually assaulting and murdering a 7-year-old girl in Hiroshima in November 2005. The Hiroshima District Court had spent two months on pretrial procedures and had conducted intensive deliberations during five straight days of hearings. Some 50 days after the first hearing, it sentenced the man to life in July 2006.

However, the Hiroshima High Court — as the appellate court — sent the case back to the district court because the district court had not examined an investigator's record of an oral statement that might have been helpful in confirming the crime location. The defense counsel appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that because the prosecution had not insisted on having the record used as evidence to confirm the crime location, the district court was not obliged to ask the prosecution to explain the report's content and to prove that confessions by the defendant were made voluntarily.

The top court ruled that since the district court is the primary authority with regard to the adoption of evidence, to endorse the appellate court ruling would "run counter to justice." A lawyer for the defendant said the appellate court's ruling helps the prosecution, which apparently erred in its trial tactics.

In past trials, an investigator's record of an oral statement often became a focal point, and arguments over the reliability of a defendant's confessions prolonged court proceedings. The Supreme Court ruling underlines the importance of the prosecution, defense counsel and court making thoughtful preparations during the pretrial process so that the first trial, now conducted under the lay judge system, can conclude flawlessly within a short time.