Why the Kishu no Don Juan Appeal Ended the Same Day

It was crushed rock sugar

“When in doubt, acquit.”

No matter how suspicious the public across Japan may feel, the judiciary adheres to its principles.

The first hearing of the appeal trial for defendant Saki Sudo (29), the former wife accused of murdering wealthy businessman Kōsuke Nozaki (then 77), known as the “Kishu Don Juan,” was held on December 8 at the Osaka High Court.

Seven years ago, Sudo is accused of causing Nozaki’s death at their home in Tanabe City, Wakayama Prefecture, by making him ingest a lethal dose of methamphetamine by some means. The prosecution sought to overturn the not-guilty verdict handed down at the first trial.

However, all witness examinations requested by the prosecution and all submitted evidence were rejected, and the trial concluded on the same day. The verdict is scheduled to be delivered on March 23 next year.

It has been established that Sudo attempted to purchase methamphetamine, contacted dealers, and made a purchase. However, the testimonies of the two dealers—Dealer A and Dealer B—called by the prosecution as witnesses contradicted each other.

There was only circumstantial evidence: Sudo was at home when Nozaki died, and on the day of the incident she went upstairs an unusually large number of times, as recorded by a healthcare app. No decisive evidence was found.

“At the first trial, dealers A and B testified that they had provided Sudo with methamphetamine. Dealer A said, ‘I gave her real methamphetamine.’ However, the drugs A claimed to have handed over were prepared by Dealer B, who testified, ‘All the methamphetamine I gave to A was actually crushed rock sugar.’ As a result, it could not be ruled out that what Sudo obtained was rock sugar. Consequently, the court ruled her not guilty of both violating the Stimulants Control Act and murder,” said a Kansai-based television network reporter.

Only unavoidable reasons are accepted

Toru Hashimoto, former governor of Osaka Prefecture and a lawyer, appeared as a commentator on the information program Gogosma (TBS) aired on December 8 and said:

“Looking back, it’s also true that in reality things sometimes turned into punish if there’s suspicion, and even when I reflect on the comments I myself made in the media, I feel there were aspects like that. Given all that, I think this is truly an ideal verdict for a criminal trial,”

thereby expressing support for the ruling.

However, from the general public’s perspective, the fact that at the very first hearing of the appeal trial the prosecution’s evidence and witnesses were all rejected, and that the next session will immediately deliver a verdict, may leave some people wondering,

“Why don’t both sides fight it out more in the appeal trial?”

With that in mind, this site asked attorney Kenta Morizane of Morizane Law Office to explain how appeal trials work.

“In criminal appeal trials, as a rule, the submission of new trial materials is not permitted. This is because Japan’s criminal appeal system adopts what is known as a post hoc review system, in which the court retrospectively determines the validity of the first-instance judgment based on the record of that trial. As a result, requests for evidence such as witness examinations are, in principle, not allowed, and are only exceptionally permitted in limited cases where there are unavoidable reasons. By unavoidable reasons here, we mean, for example, situations where a settlement with the victim is reached after the first-instance judgment. In this case, it appears that the court rejected the prosecution’s evidence requests in accordance with the general rule, and since there was no evidence examination, there was no need to continue deliberations, leading to the trial being concluded on the same day.”

Japan is often said to have a 99.9% conviction rate once a defendant is indicted. In other words, Sudo’s acquittal was an extremely rare verdict, falling within the remaining roughly 0.1%.

In Japan, the conviction rate is said to be 99.9%. In other words, Sudo’s acquittal was one of only 0.1% of the total, which means that it was a very rare verdict.