Question from a reader:
I heard that the pre-trial preparation procedure started in 2005, but did the defense side have no idea what arguments the prosecution would make before that?

What is the Pre-Trial Preparation Procedure? Its Background and Importance

The world of law, especially in criminal trials, is complex and sometimes difficult to understand. Recently, a reader asked, “The pre-trial
preparation procedure started in 2005, but did the defense side have no knowledge of the prosecution’s arguments in criminal trials before that?” I had similar questions when I first learned about this procedure. In this article, I would like to address that question while also considering the significance of the pre-trial preparation procedure and the realities of criminal trials before it was implemented.

Background of the Pre-Trial Preparation Procedure

The pre-trial preparation procedure was introduced in 2005 as a process for the defense and prosecution to organize issues and confirm evidence prior to the trial. This is expected to facilitate smoother proceedings during the trial. Specifically, the defense can know the prosecution’s arguments and evidence in advance, making it easier to prepare. However, in criminal trials before 2005, the defense was unable to adequately grasp the prosecution’s arguments before the trial. Imagine the extent of the impact this had.

The Reality of Criminal Trials Before

In the era without the pre-trial preparation procedure, the defense approached trials “blindly.” Conducting a defense without knowing the details of the evidence and arguments held by the prosecution was incredibly anxiety-inducing. For example, I recall a case where I represented a client who claimed innocence, but I had no idea what the prosecution’s arguments or evidence would be. When the prosecution suddenly presented new evidence during the trial, I was honestly shocked. To respond, the defense had to prepare counterarguments on the spot, creating a very stressful situation. Thus, in the past, the defense often entered trials unprepared, which sometimes resulted in guilty verdicts. There is nothing more frustrating than a trial proceeding with a defense attorney feeling unnecessarily anxious and unable to take appropriate measures.

Changes Brought About by the Introduction of the Pre-Trial Preparation Procedure

Now, how has the situation improved with the introduction of the pre-trial preparation procedure? First and foremost, the defense can now confirm the prosecution’s arguments and evidence in advance. This allows the defense to approach the trial more strategically. In a case I am familiar with, after going through the pre-trial preparation procedure, the defense was able to prepare thoroughly against the prosecution’s arguments, resulting in a not guilty verdict. Previously, the defense was defenseless against the prosecution’s claims, but by obtaining information in advance, they could prepare solid counterarguments. Additionally, the pre-trial preparation procedure provides an opportunity for dialogue between the defense and prosecution, helping to eliminate unnecessary time. By clarifying issues beforehand rather than during the trial, necessary evidence and witnesses can be efficiently prepared. This also reduces the burden on the court and contributes to the overall acceleration of the trial process.

Personal Views and Future Prospects

Personally, I believe that the introduction of the pre-trial preparation procedure is very significant. By allowing the defense to prepare in advance, a fairer trial can be achieved. Most importantly, the risk of innocent people being wrongfully convicted is reduced, which I feel is the true essence of a rule of law state. However, there are still challenges remaining with the pre-trial preparation procedure. For instance, when the defense submits new evidence, coordination with the prosecution is necessary, which can complicate the process in some cases. Moreover, completely eliminating information asymmetry is difficult, so an environment where the prosecution can still hold an advantage exists. I believe this area requires future reforms and a review of operations.

Conclusion

With the introduction of the pre-trial preparation procedure in 2005, the defense can now know the prosecution’s arguments in advance, significantly improving their preparation for the trial. The previously opaque flow of criminal trials is gradually becoming more transparent, which is a significant advancement. That said, legal systems are always evolving. I hope for a future where fairer and more equitable trials are realized. I firmly believe that by establishing such systems, we can build a society where we can live safely under the law.