Defense lawyers for Japanese War Crime trials?

[KlondikeGeoff]

Searching this topic under a variety of words has failed me so far in finding an answer among thousands of hits.

It's a simple enough question: Did the major defendants in the War Crime trials have their own Japanese lawyers, or did the Occupation provide Allied "public defenders?" Did the defendants have a choice?

[Otto]

Much as I hate to Wiki and run, I couldn't find anything else either. Maybe this will lead you to better information.

[Captain Amazing]

Here's the charter for the tribunal.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imtfech.htm

It says, in part:

Each accused shall have the right to be represented by counsel of his own selection, subject to the disapproval of such counsel at any time by the Tribunal. The accused shall file with the General Secretary of the Tribunal the name of his counsel. If an accused is not represented by counsel and in open court requests the appointment of counsel, the Tribunal shall designate counsel for him. In the absence of such request the Tribunal may appoint counsel for an accused if in its judgment such appointment is necessary to provide for a fair trial.

So, it looks like, in theory, at least, each individual was able to have counsel of his choosing, subject to official veto. I don't know who actually represented each of the defendants, though.

[Freddy the Pig]

John Dower discusses this issue in Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II. He says (page 462 of the paperback edition):

The defendants not only had access to Japanese counsel, but were provided--at their own request--with American attorneys who assumed their duties in mid-May, shortly after the trial began. Arguing that they had not been given sufficient time to prepare their cases, six of them, including the chief American defense attorney, resigned abruptly one month later, in the trial's opening days. Those who stayed the course eventually served their clients reasonably well . . . The appointment of American counsel reflected one of the controversial aspects of the tribunal: its grounding in Anglo-American trial procedure rather than the European traditions in which most Japanese legal specialists had been trained . . . Japanese attorneys operated at a severe disadvantage in this situation.

[KlondikeGeoff]

Originally Posted by Freddy the Pig

John Dower discusses this issue in Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II. He says (page 462 of the paperback dition):

Holy mackeral, Freddy, did you wade through 462 pages of the book to find that, or do you have a photgraphic memory?

Anyhow, many thanks, that's just what I wanted to know, and very interesting.

My interest stemmed from the fact that my Japanese wife has a friend whose late American husband was a military lawyer, and she recalls he did serve in the trials, as a defense lawyer she thought, but was not sure.

We would have guessed that all the defendants picked Japanese lawyers, but evidently not. My wife tells me that Japan did not have all that many lawyers then, and even now just a fraction of the number we have in the U.S.

[cckerberos]

Originally Posted by KlondikeGeoff

Holy mackeral, Freddy, did you wade through 462 pages of the book to find that, or do you have a photgraphic memory?

I'm guessing he used the index It's a good book.

We would have guessed that all the defendants picked Japanese lawyers, but evidently not. My wife tells me that Japan did not have all that many lawyers then, and even now just a fraction of the number we have in the U.S.

This is true, but not necessarily for the reason that many Japanese believe ("its because Japanese are less litigious"). Japan has a very low annual quota on the number of people who are allowed to become lawyers.

[KlondikeGeoff]

Originally Posted by cckerberos

This is true, but not necessarily for the reason that many Japanese believe ("its because Japanese are less litigious"). Japan has a very low annual quota on the number of people who are allowed to become lawyers.

Another interesting feature of their legal system. Her grand-nephew, for example is studying law, but toward the end of becomming a judge directly. Unlike our system, they are can be trained specficically for the bench. Here comes 'da judge.