The Japanese Supreme Court is expected to decide by the end of the fiscal year whether to allow a re-trial in the 1984 Hino Town murder case, which has faced significant delays due to prosecutors contesting the re-trial.
The Hino Town incident involves the 1984 murder of a 69-year-old woman who owned a liquor store in Hino Town, Shiga Prefecture, during a robbery that resulted in her death and the theft of a safe. After more than seven years since the Otsu District Court recognized the possibility of a re-trial for Hiroshi Sanbara, the original convicted defendant who died in prison in 2011, there is a growing expectation among legal professionals that the Supreme Court will issue a decision by the end of the fiscal year. The family's ongoing appeal for a re-trial stems from their belief in the defendant's innocence, which aligns with the Supreme Court’s historical precedence of allowing posthumous retrials in rare circumstances.
The case has been further complicated by the prosecution’s objections against the re-trial, which have caused significant delays in the proceedings. Originally, the defendant had confessed during a police investigation in 1988, which led to his sentence of life imprisonment, upheld by higher courts based on circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's ability to direct officers to critical crime scene locations. However, family members have contested the conviction after the defendant's death and pursued a re-trial, igniting discussions on Japan's retrial system and the legitimacy of prosecutors contesting re-trial decisions.
As discussions on reforming the re-trial process begin within the ruling party and the National Diet, a decision from the Supreme Court in this case could potentially influence the direction of future legal reforms regarding re-trial proceedings and the role of prosecutor objections in such cases. Legal professionals indicate that a ruling by the Supreme Court is imminent, as it is rare for the Supreme Court to overturn previous rulings except in cases of substantial factual errors or legal violations in the initial trials, however, precedents do exist where the Supreme Court has rejected lower court decisions, raising further questions about the potential outcomes in this highly scrutinized case.
