Kyoto Court Rules Police Drug Search Illegal

[Mulboyne]

A 45 year old man has been found not guilty of drug charges by a Kyoto court despite being found in possession and testing positive in an analysis of his urine. The man was stopped for questioning by police in Uji City last July. There was a bag in his car and police asked to see it. The man refused but they opened it anyway and found some drugs. The man was arrested and taken to the police station where the urine test came up positive. Judge Hirotoshi Sakaguchi of the Kyoto District Court ruled that the man's refusal of the search request meant that police needed to obtain a warrant, which they did not do. Furthermore, the judge decided that the arrest and urine test were predicated on the illegal search and so the result of the latter was also not admissible. The prosecutors in Kyoto say they will now consider their options.

Source: Kyoto Shimbun (Japanese)

[GomiGirl]

Sounds like the judge has been watching some "Law and Order" in his spare time.

Though I wonder how long it will take for the guy to be pinched for something else. The police may be gunning for him now.

[Level3]

Damn, the most maddening part of the Japanese "justice " system, IMHO.

You are found not guilty, even in a clear-cut case, and the PROSECUTION has the option to appeal. If you're unlucky enough to be a gaijin, you get to stay in jail for that time, which could be years, even though you're innocent, because you're a "flight risk".
[Or at least that's what debito tells us]

It's enough to make an innocent man, whose life is destroyed by a Japanese prosecutor who refuses to accept a mere 99% conviction rate, turn into a ball of hate, rage and a repurposing of one's life to sweet, sweet revenge.

[Kanchou]

I actually started a thread asking about search-and-seizure laws a while back. It's interesting to learn now that warrantless searches are actually illegal in Japan.

To be honest I'm surprised, and I'm impressed that the judge actually upheld the law.


Is the thing about prosecutors being able to appeal verdicts true? I can't believe there are no double jeopardy laws, and that seems to fly in the face of basic jurisprudence.

[Nukemarine]

I'm kind of warm to the idea that the state can appeal a Judge's decision. I don't really see it as double jeopardy as it's still the same case and the same process.

Granted, a member of the military can find himself on trial up to 3 times for the same act: State (or foreign government), Military, and Federal. No double jeopardy rules apply in that case.

Awesome that the illegal search and seizure action got smacked though.

[Behan]

I actually started a thread asking about search-and-seizure laws a while back. It's interesting to learn now that warrantless searches are actually illegal in Japan.

To be honest I'm surprised, and I'm impressed that the judge actually upheld the law.

Is the thing about prosecutors being able to appeal verdicts true? I can't believe there are no double jeopardy laws, and that seems to fly in the face of basic jurisprudence.

I think there are cases of people being found innocent but still held by the police/prosecutor side while they appeal the innocent verdict.

Greji and Mulboyne are two people here at FG who would probably know the answer.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

Is the thing about prosecutors being able to appeal verdicts true? I can't believe there are no double jeopardy laws, and that seems to fly in the face of basic jurisprudence.

My understanding of other democratic countries' laws (mostly English-speaking) is that prosecutors can appeal verdicts, too, provided they have sufficient grounds for doing so (as is the case in Japan). Similarly, there has to be grounds for a convicted offender to appeal against a conviction...this also applies anywhere.
And you can't be tried twice for the same offense in Japan.
Bail is something I find totally bewildering in Japan. It is rarely given to high-profile offenders and I don't know what the grounds are for permitting/refusing it.
Bekken taiho (which is arresting a person suspected of a major crime for a minor -- often unrelated -- offense and holding them in custody so further evidence regarding the real charge can be gathered) is the authorities' worst abuse of the judicial process for mine.
Anyway, it seems to me that the entire judicial system in Japan is an unmitigated cock-up.

[Kanchou]

Isn't appealing a not guilty verdict essentially double jeopardy? In the US, the prosecutor generally doesn't go to trial unless there's enough evidence to convict them (although 99% of cases are plaid out or dismissed).

If evidences comes out after an acquittal that proves them guilty, well that's tough luck for the prosecution... well, in civilized countries

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

Isn't appealing a not guilty verdict essentially double jeopardy?

No. Double jeopardy is when you are tried again for a crime in which you have already been tried and all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. For example, someone commits a murder. They are convicted in the lowest court (district courts in Japan) and the verdict is upheld by higher courts (or confirmed if neither side appeals within 14 days of the initial verdict). The person cannot be convicted again for that particular murder. If they are, it's double jeopardy and not possible in Japan.

In the US, the prosecutor generally doesn't go to trial unless there's enough evidence to convict them (although 99% of cases are plaid out or dismissed).

Japanese prosecutors are the same....which is why the conviction rate in courts is so high. They will generally avoid taking a case to trial unless they know they're gonna win it. And that's why they will almost invariably appeal against "not guilty" verdicts at any level of the judicial process.
Plea bargaining is not allowed in Japan, so if prosecutors don't get a confession (let's not talk about how this is obtained at times) or have enough evidence to support a case, they'll usually let it drop.
I think Japan's legal system would work better if the judiciary showed greater independence, but we're talking Porco Rosso coming to life in terms of that ever happening.

[Kanchou]

I was under the impression that double jeopardy applies to any trial that goes to verdict, meaning if someone is acquitted of said murder the prosecutor cannot indict them again, as it would be double jeopardy. So why is it the prosecution can appeal an acquittal (assumably in order to persue a conviction)?

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

I was under the impression that double jeopardy applies to any trial that goes to verdict, meaning if someone is acquitted of said murder the prosecutor cannot indict them again, as it would be double jeopardy. So why is it the prosecution can appeal an acquittal (assumably in order to persue a conviction)?

You're kinda right. But rather than the verdict, it is the confirmation of the verdict. Until a verdict is confirmed, the right to appeal remains open (unless that verdict was handed down by the ultimate judicial authority -- which in Japan and the U.S. is the Supreme Court). Even Supreme Court rulings can be appealed in the sense that a review of the decision can be requested within 14 days, though the possibility of the ruling being overturned are extremely limited. (After that, probably only a pardon offers the last resort for conviction).
Of course, there needs to be grounds for an appeal, but these are usually easy to come up with by citing even a single ground for the reason to dispute a decision and it is highly rare to refuse the right of either party to appeal a lower court ruling (this happens more in the West than Japan).
I'd say costs (demanding taxpayers are footing their bill) and a more independent judiciary more likely to uphold "not guilty" verdicts are probably a major reason why prosecutors in the West are less prone to appealing lower court decisions than their Japanese counterparts. But that's just a guess.