The defense attorneys for the appeal trial had been reporting our father's condition to the Court since visitation became possible. However, it seems like the Court was not interested or ignored it.
The defense attorneys not only reported to the Court his condition at the time of visitation but also requested psychiatric evaluation and suspension of the public trial procedure by attaching opinions written by psychiatrists. This was a petition to first give medical treatment to our father since he is not capable of being tried, i.e., no litigation capacity, and then to suspend the trial procedure until he is in a condition to stand trial.
Three written opinions were submitted dated October 26, November 5 and December 10. The "need of thorough examination and medical treatment" for our father was pointed out in these opinions. In psychiatric evaluation, experienced physicians, etc. determine the party's mental condition based on special knowledge and experiences to report their opinions to a court. It is also stipulated in Article 314 Section 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the public trial procedure must be suspended if there is no litigation capacity.
Nevertheless, the Court ignored the doctors' written opinions. On December 10 of the same year, two judges and a clerk including the Presiding Judge Suda for the appeal trial visited the Tokyo Detention House to interview our father for the purpose of "giving instruction on the procedure to submit the statement of reasons for appeal."
We heard that the wheelchair that our father was on was placed on a sheet to protect the floor due to fear of incontinence. Incontinence means inability to control urination or bowel movement. In other words, our father received "instruction on the procedure" from the Presiding Judge on the premise of being unable to control toiletry duties.
Communication with our father is impossible even for his family. There is no reason that only the Presiding Judge is able to communicate with him.
The Court considered that our father "replied" with the noise he uttered that sounded like nodding. You cannot conclude it as a reply unless the party' understanding can be confirmed. Nevertheless, the Court "diagnosed" that our father was normal, stating that he seemed to understand the content of "instruction on the procedure."
