Japan's Supreme Court has officially rejected the fourth retrial request of Ayako Haraguchi, 97, who has maintained her innocence since her conviction for murder related to the notorious Otsuchi Incident of 1979. The ruling was issued on September 25, 2023, by the Supreme Court’s third petty bench, led by Chief Justice Kōhō Ishikane, who firmly stated, "There is no room for reasonable doubt about the conviction." The events surrounding this case have been controversial and have lingered for over four decades.
The Otsuchi Incident began on the night of October 12, 1979, when the body of Haraguchi's brother-in-law, then 42, was discovered at his home. The cause of death was identified as suffocation due to strangulation, which the court later attributed to Haraguchi conspiring with her former husband and relatives due to grievances against the victim. This recognition led to their convictions for murder and concealment of the body.
Despite denials during the investigative phase, Haraguchi has consistently asserted her innocence. She was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, which was upheld by the courts, including the district and appellate courts. The first retrial request, filed after serving her sentence, was granted by the lower court but reversed by the High Court, and subsequent requests were also denied due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Most recently, Haraguchi's defense team presented new evidence during the latest retrial appeal, arguing for the first time based on medical assessments conducted by emergency medical experts. This evidence claimed the victim may have died from injuries sustained after falling off his bicycle and subsequent inadequate emergency care, rather than homicide. This was a shift from the original narrative shaped by the prosecution, which insisted on the suffocation theory as the basis for the murder charge.
Significantly, the Fukuoka High Court's Miyazaki branch had previously designated the new evidence as not sufficiently convincing to warrant reopening the case. They declared, "The presented evidence does not conclusively demonstrate the cause of death or the timing of death with any certainty." This leading decision echoed throughout the legal process, aligning with the Supreme Court's stance.
The Supreme Court articulated their dissatisfaction with the medical evidence, noting its limitations due to factors such as the advanced state of decomposition of the body and the speculative nature of the conclusions drawn from photographic analysis. The court stated, "What was proposed only points to one potential cause of death and does not, on its own, bring about reasonable doubt of the conviction rationale established initially."
This determination drew criticism, most prominently from Justice Katsuya Uga, who voiced dissent. He emphasized the importance of considering the new evidence seriously, asserting, "The new medical findings revealed significant insights about the period surrounding the death of the victim; it merits judicial reconsideration due to the importance of establishing the truth." Uga's separate opinion marks the first time any member of the Supreme Court has openly contested the decision to deny the retrial.
Throughout the legal proceedings, the controversies surrounding the convictions exposed serious doubts about the integrity of witness testimonies and the evidence used against Haraguchi. Notably, the confessions of co-defendants, who had mental disabilities, came under scrutiny, with claims made about their reliability under the pressures of interrogation. The overall integrity of the judicial process has been questioned several times, including during previous retrial requests where initial approvals had later been overturned after appeals from the prosecution.
Since the Otsuchi incident unfolded, Haraguchi's case has sparked discussions on issues of justice, wrongful conviction, and the challenges faced by the legal system. With the Supreme Court’s decision to finalize the rejection of the retrial request, Haraguchi's fight for freedom and justice remains unresolved, leaving questions about the adequacy of evidence and the veracity of her convictions.
Her story is one of enduring struggle against what she perceives as judicial injustice, compelling advocates for reform and those concerned about wrongful convictions to continue to question the past and demand more rigorous standards for evidence and conviction thresholds within Japan’s legal framework.