A complicated trial
(From The Japan Times April 23 issue)

毒物カレー判決、難事件が残した課題

The Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court, in a 5-0 decision April 21, upheld lower court rulings that sentenced a Wakayama woman to death for killing four people and poisoning 63 others by lacing a curry stew with arsenic during a community summer festival in July 1998. This was a difficult and unusual case. There was no direct evidence linking defendant Masumi Hayashi to the killings and even her motive remained unclear.

Expert analysis determined that the arsenic in the stew was the same as the arsenic found in her home. The defense said that the analysis was lax. A witness account said that Hayashi was seen minding the stew pots alone. The defense argued that the person seen could have been Hayashi's daughter.

The top court decided that circumstantial evidence, including a high concentration of arsenic found in Hayashi's hair, proves, "to a degree that excludes any rational doubt," that she was the only person who had an opportunity to put arsenic in the pots of curry. As to her motive, the prosecution said that Hayashi was infuriated over her neighbors' attitude toward her, which made her feel alienated from society. The district and high courts said that her motive was unclear. But the top court said that the failure to pinpoint the motive does not affect the judgment that she was the culprit. One wonders whether more could have been done to determine the motive.

This case highlights a difficulty that may affect the new lay judge system, which starts May 21. How will lay judges deal with a case in which there is no direct evidence, the motive is unknown and the defendant vehemently insists on his or her innocence?

It has been assumed that most cases handled by lay judges will last only three to five days. But complicated trials could last longer. The prosecution and the defense counsel must uphold the principle of building their respective cases on the strength of concrete evidence. Since the lay judge system uses a limited scope of evidence in an effort to shorten trials, extra care must also be taken to ensure the defense counsel has time to adequately prepare its case.

1998年、和歌山市内の自治会の夏祭りでカレーを食べた住人が4人死亡、63人が重軽傷を負った事件で林真須美被告に対し、最高裁は1、2審の死刑判決を支持した。被告と犯行を直接結ぶ証拠もなく動機も不明な難事件だった。

弁護側は、殺傷に使われたヒ素と被告宅で押収されたヒ素が同じとする鑑定がずさんだとし、一人で鍋の近くにいたという目撃証言に対しては、娘と見誤った可能性を主張した。

最高裁は、被告の髪から高濃度のヒ素が検出されるなどの状況証拠から、犯人であることは「合理的な疑いを差し挟む余地のないほど」証明されるとした。動機が不明でも被告が犯人だとの認定は左右されないとの判決だが、もっと調査する手だてはなかったか。

裁判員制度が始まるが、動機が不明で自白も直接の物証もない事件への市民の対応は難しい。公判の迅速化で証拠も限定されるため、弁護側の準備時間の確保が重要となる。