Statement on the Judgment of Acquittal in the Retrial of the Fukui Female Junior High School Student Murder Case
Today, in the retrial of the case known as the "Fukui Female Junior High School Student Murder Case" involving Mr. Shoshi Maekawa as a defendant, the Kanazawa branch of the Nagoya High Court (Presiding Judge Keisuke Masuda) handed down a judgment of acquittal (the judgment to dismiss the appeal to the court of second instance made by the public prosecutors).
The case involves the murder of a female junior high school student in the city of Fukui that occurred on March 19, 1986. Mr. Maekawa was arrested a year later and indicted based on the testimonies of the relevant parties involved in the case, despite a lack of objective evidence. To this day, he has continued to maintain his innocence.
On September 26, 1990, the court of first instance for the original trial in the case (the Fukui District Court) denied the credibility of the testimonies of the relevant parties involved in the case, which were constantly changing, and rendered an acquittal. However, the court of second instance for the original trial (the Kanazawa branch of the Nagoya High Court) recognized the credibility of those testimonies, which were constantly changing again even in the appeal, stating that they were "basically consistent." On February 9, 1995, the court reversed the judgment rendered by the court of first instance and handed down a guilty verdict, sentencing Mr. Maekawa to seven years of imprisonment, which was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.
In July 2004, Mr. Maekawa, supported by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (the "JFBA"), filed his first appeal for retrial. The disclosure of materials such as some of the written statements by the relevant parties involved in the case during the proceedings for a request for retrial at the Kanazawa branch of the Nagoya High Court revealed how drastically those testimonies changed over the course of the original trial. On November 30, 2011, the court denied the credibility of the testimonies and made the decision to commence a retrial in the case. However, on March 6, 2013, in the appeal to the decision to commence a retrial at the Nagoya High Court, the court decided to rescind the decision by the Kanazawa branch of the Nagoya High Court, ruling that the new evidence did not diminish the probative value of the old evidence, which was ultimately upheld in the special appeal against the decision by the Nagoya High Court.
On October 14, 2022, Mr. Maekawa filed his second appeal for retrial. During the proceedings for a request for retrial at the Kanazawa branch of the Nagoya High Court, the court’s active direction of the proceedings helped achieve the disclosure of 287 pieces of undisclosed evidence from the public prosecutors and the examination of the key witnesses in the case. On October 23, 2024, the Kanazawa branch of the Nagoya High Court recognized that the new evidence including the evidence disclosed by the public prosecutors and the results of the witness examination was clear evidence which should make the court render an acquittal. After conducting a comprehensive evaluation of both old and new evidence, the court once again denied the credibility of the testimonies of the relevant parties involved in the case, stating that there was a concrete and reasonable doubt that one of the relevant parties in the case had made a false testimony against Mr. Maekawa for their own benefit, and the investigative authorities had improperly influenced the testimonies of other relevant parties in the case by means such as asking them leading questions to form testimonies from the relevant parties. Based on the conclusion, the court made the decision to commence a retrial. The prosecutor subsequently chose to abandon an appeal to the decision, making it final and binding.
On March 6, 2025, the first date of the retrial was held at the Kanazawa branch of the Nagoya High Court. During the trial, an examination of the evidence was conducted; however, no request for evidence other than that which had been submitted by the proceedings for the second request for retrial was made. The defense counsel and the public prosecutors made their arguments, and the trial was concluded on its first date. During their argument, the public prosecutors made an argument in favor of guilty once again.
Today’s judgment ruled, as acknowledged in the proceedings for the second request for retrial, that it is clear that the decision of the court of first instance to acquit Mr. Maekawa which denied the credibility of the testimonies of the relevant parties involved in the case is legitimate and conforms to logical and empirical rules, stating that a reasonable doubt that one of the relevant parties in the case had made a false testimony against Mr. Maekawa for their own benefit, and the investigative authorities had improperly influenced the testimonies of other relevant parties in the case by means such as asking them leading questions to form testimonies from the relevant parties, cannot be eliminated. The court ultimately chose to maintain the acquittal judgment and dismissed the appeal made by the public prosecutors.
Today’s judgment not only pointed out a concrete suspicion that the investigative authorities had, in fact, manipulated the key witnesses into a desired testimony in a way that the public prosecutors themselves described as "absurd," but also acknowledged that a police officer, who was expected to maintain impartiality in their duties, had provided money to a key witness in the case with whom they had no personal relationship close to the time of their testimony in court. The court also ruled that this was an unjust act that betrayed the public trust in the impartial nature of police duties. Furthermore, the court found that the public prosecutors for the original trial were aware of an error in the underlying facts in the case that were important for judging the credibility of the testimonies of the key witnesses but decided to conceal the said error and continued to make claims based on the incorrect underlying facts in their arguments and statement of reasons for appeal. The court stated that the conduct of the public prosecutors in the trial must be regarded as dishonest, unforgivable, unjust, and unbecoming of prosecutors as a representative of the public interest. For this reason, the court ruled that the misconduct and improper conduct by the public prosecutors and the police not only undermine the public trust in public prosecutors and police, but also seriously shake the public confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole.
The JFBA highly values today’s judgment, which once again proves Mr. Maekawa’s innocence.
Since the original trial in the case, the public prosecutors have continued to take a passive stance on evidence disclosure, preventing the resolution of the case and the provision of relief for the damage caused by the miscarriage of justice in the case. The public prosecutors’ passive attitude toward the resolution of the case and the provision of such relief deserves condemnation for the failure to fulfill their role as a representative of the public interest. The JFBA demands the public prosecutors sincerely reflect on their actions in the case and strongly urges them to immediately choose to waive an appeal to the judgment of acquittal and allow it to be finalized.
Moreover, the Fukui Female Junior High School Student Murder Case significantly highlights the current issues with Part IV of the Code of Criminal Procedure that are also highlighted in a robbery murder and arson case that occurred in Shizuoka where four people were killed (the so-called Hakamada Case). In this case, the courts played a decisively important role in disclosing the evidence and resolving the case during the proceedings for a request for retrial by actively directing the proceedings, which serves as the reminder of the importance of the courts in the proceedings. In addition, the fact that it took more than 13 years to commence a retrial of the case after the decision to do so was awarded to Mr. Maekawa presents an adverse effect of prosecution appeals against the court’s ruling to commence a retrial. The JFBA, reflecting on the judgment of acquittal in the retrial of the case, once again strongly urges the government and the Diet to immediately amend Part IV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including legislating to ensure the disclosure of evidence in retrial request proceedings, prohibiting prosecution appeals against a court’s ruling to commence a retrial, and establishing procedures for retrial request proceedings and adding provisions stipulating such procedures.
July 18, 2025
Reiko Fuchigami
President, Japan Federation of Bar Associations