The defense attorneys felt a sense of danger in the approach taken by the Court without any inhibition; therefore they submitted a document to request an oath by expert witnesses in a public courtroom, examination of expert witnesses, etc. in accordance with the stipulation on expert opinions under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
However, the court "unofficially" put the psychiatrist Dr. Nishiyama selected as an expert witness for the Court under oath and did not examine the expert witness according to the stipulation on "expert opinions" under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is stipulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure in Japan that for the process of expert opinion, the expert witness is to be put under oath and examined in a public courtroom.
Moreover, the defense team was notified of this information at a later date. The Court probably felt guilty and secretly worked on an unofficial oath, etc. in a closed room without informing the defense team.
The defense attorneys were very surprised and speechless when they learned about this.
The defense attorneys further submitted to the Court a summary of written opinion by the third psychiatrist as well as a written opinion by the fourth psychiatrist, after Dr. Nishiyama was appointed as an "expert witness".
As we observe the approach taken by the Court, it was almost impossible that a right "expert witness" with the pride as a psychiatrist was selected. The only thing that the defense attorneys could do was to have my father examined by as many psychiatrists as possible to obtain written opinions. We think they hoped to collect as broad and fair opinions as possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment