xt7msb3wtd0h_20 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2.dao.xml unknown 166 Cubic Feet 381 document boxes, seven textile items, three map folders, one artwork archival material 72m2 English University of Kentucky The physical rights to the materials in this collection are held by the University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Frederick Moore Vinson papers Economic stabilization. Elections -- United States -- Congresses. Judges -- Correspondence. Judges -- United States. Judicial opinions Judicial process -- United States Legislators -- Correspondence. New Deal, 1933-1939. World War, 1914-1918 -- Veterans. World War, 1939-1945. Chief Justice - visit of Japanese Justices to the Supreme Court text Chief Justice - visit of Japanese Justices to the Supreme Court 2019 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2/Box_163/Folder_10/Multipage2463.pdf 1950 1950 1950 section false xt7msb3wtd0h_20 xt7msb3wtd0h Prelimiee .11 finishes? :

Under Japanese law a person who is arrested can be held
in custody up to 72 hours by the police and for an additional
20 days upon permission of the court. No form of bail is
provided during this period, althouCh he may be liberated
without bail at the discretion of the police or court. Once
the suspect is formally indicted (meaning when the prosecutor
files the written indictment with the court) he may be entitl-
ed to bail. Bail is a matter of right except in certain
enumerated cases:

I. Where the offense charged is punishable by death

or life imprisonment;

-\2. Where the accused was previously convicted of an
offense punishable by death or imprisonment for
10 years or more;
Where the accused has "habitually" committed an
offense punishable with imprisonment for 3 years
or more;
There it is suspected that the accused may destroy
Where the name and dwelling of the accused is

In the excepted cases, bail is in the discretion of the court.
Upon conviction bail automatically terminates. Pending
appeal, bail is discretionary with the court in all types of
cases. Bail may be either a cash deposit, negotiable securi—
ties, or a bond furnished by a third person; in the majority
of cases, bail is a cash deposit.

29.19. for Discussign:

Is the Japanese law too strict in denying bail before

Are the limitations on bail as a matter of right under
Fapaiese law too strict? Would it be preferable to
make bail a matter of right except in capital cases
where the "proof is evident or th presumption great"
as is the general Situation in the United States? (In
Yew vork, however, bail is discretionary.)

What factors should be considered in determining the
amount of bail? In the interest of protecting the
community from dangerous accused, is it permissible to
set bail at a high figure which the individual is not
likely to be able to provide and, therefore, will remain
in confinement? In setting the amount of bail should
the likelihood or further crimes being committed by the
same person be considered?

Role of the prosecutor in connection with the amount

of hail.

What action can be taken by the courts or what new pro—
cedures provided, to prevent the commission of new
offenses by ,ersons on bail? °

ire there any statistics showing the number of new
offenses committed by perSons while out on bail?
Revocation of bail.
Fethods of enforcin





1. Visiting hearings before magistrates and U. S.
commissions, or regular courts, for setting of bail.

2. Inspection of various bail forms~~bonds of different
types, receipts, court records.

3. Attending hearings on forfeiture of boil.

4. Conferences with judges and prosecutors as to topics
for discussion. If possible, conference with Judge George
Harris, Federal District Court, San Francisco, in re cancella—
tion of Harry Bridges' bail pending appeal.



Preliminary Statement

~. “*—


ine highest administrative organ in the Japanese Court system is the
Judicial Assembly of the Supreme Court. This assembly is composed of the
full panel of the Supreme Court of 15 judges under the chairmanship of the
Chief Justice. nly high policy decisions of court administration are consi—
dered by this body.

Directly under the Judicial Lssembly are the various bureaus that perform
functions as follows: public relations with the Japanese people; supervision
of court clerks and their duties; supervision of preparation of court records;
number of judges assigned to various courts; rules of admission for Japanese
and foreign lawyers; budget preparation; statistics concerning number of cases
received, pending, etc. in the various courts; case load per judge, etc.;
publication of opinions; training of judicial apprentices; personnel work;
purchasing of supplies and equipment and construction; maintenance of liaison
with Diet on budget problems and prepare list of possible candidates for judge—
ship for submission to the Cabinet which makes the appointment from a list of
candidates designated by the Supreme Court.

Practical Japanese Problems


The most crucial practical problem in the court procedure of Japan today
is the slowness of the courts in civil and criminal cases. There are many
reasons for this condition and a few are as follows:

1. The tremendous revolutionary changes made not only in the Constitution
but in rules of procedure in practice since the end of the war. Thus, many of
the problems before the courts are being presented for the first time and
neither the lawyers, procurators nor the courts are familiar with them.
Consequently, they proceed cautiously.

2. Since the Dodge austerity'program, finances are a serious problem.
Buildings are needed; funds for salaries that will attract competent judges
are lacking; obsolete typewriters and office equipment are in use and badly
need replacement. Transportation is a serious problem for court personnel,
lawyers and litigants.

5. There is no shorthand used in the courts. There are only a handful
of shorthand experts in Japan as the language does not lend itself to any
phonetic system. The court reporters merely take down in long hand the gist
of the proceedings, so that there is no complete record of trial and, on
appeal, witnesses are often recalled for their testimony. Experiments are
being made with wire and tape recorders but so far this has proved unsatisfac-

4. Every decision, both in civil and criminal cases, must contain in
writing a full presentation of the facts and the legal reasons on which it is
based. ‘

5. ‘he Japanese do not use the continuous trial system. A single daurt
may be hearing 50 different cases on 50 consecutive days. The case heard on
the first day may not be heard again for 2 or 5 months, then another day of
trial is held. If a third day of trial is needed, it may be another two or
three months before the litigants go to court again, etc. Experiments are
being made with the continuous trial system and the tendency is to gradually
shift over to that system.


 6. All judges and lawyers are keenly aware of the deficiencies set forth
above and are showing av‘d interest in improving the situation. Many confer~
ences have been held between representatives of SOAP and bar associations and
judges in an attempt to solve the problems.

7. There is no arraignment and plea system in Japanese criminal proceed~
ings. Consequently; except for petty'offenses disposed of by summary procedure
in the Summary Court in which the accused is not required to appear, all cases
must be tried. In contrast, in the United States the vast majority of offenses,
serious as well as m'nor, are speedily disposed of by pleas of guilty.

8. The Japanese courts have no authority to punish for contempt. As a
consequence litigant, accused, attorney and witnesses are frequently rather
casual in their promptness and attendance. Some cases have been marked by
considerable disorder.

9. Nearly all Japanese attorneys are individual general practitioners.
Two~thirds of them work at home. They have little or no clerical help, and
due to the language problem previously mentioned, most of them draft and copy
all their own documents by hand.

Topics for Discussion


1. Technique and advantages of the continuous trial system.
Detailed explanations of the docket system.

Proper distribution of cases among judges and the assignment of
judges from one district to another to equalize tasks imposed on each.

Practice of principle that judicial time should not be expended on
non-judicial duties.

Duties of administrative branch in auditing reports of expenditures,

purchasing equipment and supplies, etc.

Requirement of each judge to make periodical reports on the work in
his court.

Functions of judge of trial court and intermediate review court, as
W011 as of attorneys, with reference to record of trial.

In what type of cases do the courts in America write opinions in
support of judgments.


1. Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Supreme Court Building, Vashington, Do C.
Arthur T. Vanderbilt
Chief Justice, Supreme Court of New Jersey
744 Broad St., Room 1615
Hewark, N. J.








Q xygvmmvm

















.v. L 4.3%.






MM .5».




3433. $23.2


























qwm.;.m;.;..omwm .m
C 3333:2240



. )4)

:Sm Tfumsm












.Zm :c..t;.,732m



3,4 4 . £2

93%. :omwm;






...mm 2.... a rill.







m. 232‘








U :3 mi.








3fl..w M): m.




U 4.4.





.3». >225? it



.nbmwza \n: :iuwTMfi

II. E. '1..- 7..., .{

4:3".an fl





x: a E Mam <

..-Lv _ c550 330.313.” TM

u:£i@¢.¢ a






Co $r§w3ri€< 318.03.,






mymwvf: J; ..,.


.L . (3:3. xtni «4.2;».







|§l| 4' I 4|!!! I: \

.4. 2444;:






4:u hgxzm xzxm





5.44.3»... weir?” m‘








v. wyvi 1:. my); . .Timm Xv





m:# we








_{thTT cf<3radesngfi.nsiance anamHy_(hse




-. '

.~~ — ~ ~ - ~ buprmne COU r? ““1



. i
« 2
a ’g
} ‘Ifikoku(S€COnd)
SPecid! APPedl
K5 Rot/(U (Compldm't) :



High Court -





lCdS€S hand 1962 by Me Summdy Court In {he first

I I Msianrt, . ‘
P‘GWKSI -~ w Cases handIed by the 0mm Court In the first

3.3:?05‘365 handled by U16 H'Sh Court m ’(he {hit




Topics for Discussion:

1. Is it desirable to have shorter and more lucid
opinions? Comment on the usual length of opinions.

2. Should appellate courts in reversing cases and
granting new trials indicate their views on questions of
law argued before them?

3. What is the best method of preparing more clear—
cut and intelligible written opinions?

Comment on the following suggestions:

a. The author of an opinion must thoroughly
familiarize himself with every essential fact in the case
presented for decision.

b. He must determine the points of law involved.

c. He must ascertain the law which is applicable
to the facts of the case presented for decision.

d. He must actually formulate in his own mind a
logical plan of discussing the problems presented for deter—

h. Should all the essential and ultimate facts in
the case be stated?

Should the opinion set forth evidence which is
contrary to other evidence believed by the trier of fact ?

Are lengthy quotations from other opinions

Is there any value to voluminous statements of
immaterial facts?

If the Solution of one legal proposition will
result in a reversal of the case, is there any point in
discussing other collateral and immaterial propositions
appearing in the case?

If the case is to be affirmed, should the opinion
state and carefully analyze every proposition presented by
the appealing party?

Should cases relied on by the appealing party
be distinguished, if the case is to be affirmed? If the
case cited by the appellant is clearly not in point because
of factual differences is it necessary to discuss the facts,
or will a simple statement that it is clearly inapplicable

5. Should the opinion contain a clear pronouncement of
the question presented for the court's decision?

Should the question be directly answered either
in the affirmative or negative before discussing the rule
of law?


 6. Should the opinion give the pertinent rule of law
which is controlling, With appropriate citation of authori—

In citing authorities is it necessary to cite
more than one or two cases which are directly in point?

Does it add to the opinion to have a legal
secretary Copy a long list of authorities from some treatise
or law journal in support of the declared proposition?

Is it necessary in the average case to give long
and extended quotations from authorities cited in support of
the proposition.

7. Should dictum be omitted from the opinion?

What is the value as precedents of discussion of
Collateral rules of law in an opinion? Does it clarify or
tend to confuse the issue being decided by the court?

Should questions not absolutely necessary for
disposition of the case pending before the court be discussed
and decided in the opinion?

Which is more important, the reason for the
answer to the problem presented, or the reasoning sustaining
authorities cited in support of a rule of law? For example,
are the reasons for the adoption of the statutory provision
or decision cited material?

8. Should the opinion apply the rule of law announced
by the court to the facts of the case?

Should the opinion state briefly and concisely
or at length how the rule of law applies to the facts of
the case?

9. Should the opinion state the ultimate decision?
In concluding the opinion should the judgment

or order of the trial court, in so many words, be "affirmed",
"reversed" or "modified"?

If the judgment is to be modified will it be
helpful if the specific modification directed is set forth
in the opinion?

10. Should the opinion contain diagrams, photographs,
copi:s of exhibits or other devices which will tend to
clarify and simplify it?

Give examples in actual o inions

ll. What is the proper purpose of footnotes in an

Should they be used for excerpts of testimony?

Should they be used for incidental, collateral
or additional cases nrt of sufficient importance to cite
in the main opinion?

Is it helpful to set forth in a footnote the
text of the statute or constitutional provision referred to?


 12. Should the opinion scold the trial judge, counsel,
parties or the colleagues of the author of the opinion?

Is it your duty to give your views on the
numerous problems confronting humanity, or to decide the
controverted questions presented?

Comment on the following sentences of Canon 19
of the Canons of Judicial Ethics of the American Bar Associa-

"A judge should not yield to pride of opinion
or value more highly his individual reputation than that
of the Court to which he should be loyal. Except in
case of conscientious difference of opinion on funds-
mentel principle, dissenting opinions should be dis—
couraged in Courts of last resort."



Preliminary Statement: The courts of Japan are organized in
one national court system, consisting of the following courts:

Supreme Court: A Chief Justice and 1h Associate
Justices. Court of last resort in civil and criminal matters.

High Courts: Eight High Courts and six High
Court Branches. Intermediate appellate courts with original
jurisdiction only in certain crimes of sedition.

District Courts: Forty—nine District Courts and
two hundred and twenty—eight District Court Branches. The
main courts of first instance for civil and criminal cases.
Hears appeals in civil cases from Summary Courts.

Family Courts: Forty—nine Family Courts and two
hundred and twentyneight Family Court Branches. First
instance courts for all matters relating to domestic relations
and juveniles.

Summary Courts: Five hundred and fifty—nine Summary
Courts. First instance courts for trial of petty civil and
criminal matters and also for theft and robbery cases.

There are no municipal courts in Japan today, and
no administrative courts.

Topics for Discussion
1. The Federal Judiciary: Its Organization
a. Constitutional provisions

(1) To what extent is the organization of
the Federal judiciary, including that of the Supreme Court,
wholly within the control of Congress?

(2) How does the Constitution provide for
the tenure of office and mode of appointment of Federal
judges and protect them against having their compensation
reduced by Congress?

(3) What does the Constitution provide con—
cerning the extent of the Federal judicial power?

(A) To what extent is the allotment of
jurisdiction to the several Federal courts within the control
of Congress?

(5) May Congress change the original juris—
diction of the Supreme Court concerning cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those
in which a State shall be a party?

(6) lmy Congress make exceptions to and
regulations concerning the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court, both as to law and fact, in all other cases
declared by the Constitution to be within the Federal
judicial power?


 (7) What are the Constitutional limitations
uDon control of the practice and procedure in the Federal
courts by Congress? (emphasis upon the inherent power to
issue certain extraordinary writs, such as mandamus, injunc-
tion, certioreri, prohibition, etc., and, espeCially, to
punish for contempt any disobedience to orders)

(8) Is the Judicial Article (Article III,
Section 1 of the Constitution) self—executory? (emphasis
upon the fact that even the Supreme Court which is expressly
provided for in the Constitution, required for its existence
an organizing statute of Congress)

b. Organization of the Supreme Court and inferior
Federal Courts by statutes

The Supreme Court
Circuit Courts of Appeals
District Courts
Court of Claims
Courts of the District of Columbia
Court of Customs [ppeals
United States Customs Court
United States Court of Customs and
Fatent Appeals
ourt of the United States
.er'ency Court of Appeals


x-’ V‘k—y'N—r ‘1 x.‘

O\O m-q O\\Jl-T“\,-) r\).'—'



2. Federal Courts: Their Respective Jurisdictions
a. The Supreme Court

(J) In what instances has Congress granted
jurisdiction to inferior Federal courts over cases within
the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

(2) Why is it that Congress may not give
to the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in other cases
than those specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

(3) What were the main steps in the process
by which Congress greatly limited the right of litigants to
resort to the Supreme Court by Writ of error or appeal?

(When were writs of error abolished?)

(A) What are the main classes of cases of
and the present limitations on appeals of right to the Supreme
Court? (from State courts, Circuit Courts of Appeals,
“statutory" District Courts, cases certified by certain inferior
federal courts, etc)

(5) Does the Supreme Court now have jurisdic~
tion to reverse, modify, or affirm the judgments or decrees of
all State courts of last resort in which is determined the
constitutionality of a statute or treaty of the United States
or of a State statute as tested by the Constitution of the
United States?

(6) How much of the present appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is discretionary in


 (7) As Congress proceeded to greatly
restrict appeals of right (in order to grant relief to
the Supreme Court from the pressure of cases coming to it)
how did it reserve the right to the Supreme Court by
certiorari to review such cases, on such points of law
as it may deem desirable?

(8) That are the prerequisites in order to
obtain by certiorari a review by the Supreme Court of a
decision of a State court? (Must the decision be final?
Must a substantial Federal question be involved, or one not
previously determined by the Supreme Court? Will the Supreme
Court review a decision not in accord with applicable previous
decisions of that court?)

(9) Is it true that in the exercise of its
discretion, the Supreme Court grants petitions for certiorari
uprn the affirmative vote of four of its nine justices?

(10) Is there an appeal of right to the
Supreme Court in the following cases:

Where a State court has upheld a State
statute claimed to be repugnant to the Federal Constitution
or laws or treaties of the United States?

Where a State court has held invalid
a statute or treaty of the United States?

Where a Circuit Court of Appeals has
held a State statute to be repugnant to the Federal Constitu—
tion or laws or treaties of the United States?

(11) What facts must a petitioner show in
order to obtain review, by certiorari, of a decision of a
Circuit Court of Appeals? (Conflict with decisions in
other circuitS? Conflict with decision of local or State
tribunals? Conflict with applicable decisions of the Supreme
Court? That the question involved has not been, and should
be, decided by the Supreme Court? That a question of local
law or an important question of general law has been improperly

b. Circuit Courts of Appeal

(1) Are the judgments of a Circuit Court
final in the following classes of cases:

Where the jurisdiction of the District
Court is dependent entirely upon the citizenship of opposite
parties to the suit or controversy?

Cases arising under the patent laws?
Under the copyright laws? Under the revenue laws? Under
the criminal law? In admiralty cases?

(2) Is it true that where the jurisdiction
of the District Court is invoked on the sole ground that a
substantial question under the Federal Constitution, Federal
statutes or treaties is inVolved, the appellate jurisdiction
is exclusively in the Supreme Court?


 (3) Do Circuit Courts now have appellate
jurisdiction to review final decisions of District Courts
in all cases except where there is a direct appeal to the
Supreme Court? ‘

0. District Uourts

(1) Do District Courts have any appellate


(2) What exceptions are there to the
general statement that the original jurisdiction of District
Courts extends to the trial of all cases coming within the
Federal judicial power for which statutory provision has
been made?

3. General Consideration of the Jurisdiction of the
Federal Courts

a. Federal Judicial Power

(1) May Federal judicial poWer be vested in
other than Federal cour‘s?

(2) May State courts be permitted, in the
exercise of their respective jurisdictions, to deal with
causes which are within the Federal judicial power?

(3) Are all cases of the following
classes within the Federal judicial power:

Cases in law and equity arising under
the Constitution and laws and treaties of the United States?

Cases affecting ambassadors and other
public ministers and consuls? (Does this include representa~
tives of the US or only those accredited to the US?)

Cases of admiralty and maritime juris—

(h) Are all controversies of the following
classes within the Federal judicial power:

Between two or more States?

Between a State and a citizen of another

Between citizens of different States?

Between citizens of the same State
claiming lands under grants of
different States?

Between a State or the citizens thereof
and foreign States, citizens or

b. What are the classes of cases in which Federal
Jurisdiction is made exclusive?

(1) Admiralty Cases?
(2) Prize Cases?
Patent, Copyright and Bankruptcy laws


 (A) Cases in which the US is a party,
controversies between the States
of the Union, Suits by a State
against citizens of another State?

(5) Suits affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls?

c. What are the ancillary powers of Federal courts9
(including inherent power to punish for
contempt and to make rules governing
their own procedure)

d. Do the Federal ceurts have power to issue
Writs of habeas corpus? Under what

e. May the States control or limit the exercise
of Federal judicial power?

f. What constitutes a "Federal question"? (That
is , what is the technical meaning of
"a case arising under the Constitution,
laws ur treaties of the United States"?)

(1? Does a case involve a Federal Question
simply because, in the progress of the litigation, it becomes
necessary to refer to or give a construction to the Federal
Constitution or laws of the United States?

(2) Is the fact that the defendant may set
up a Federal right, privilege, or immunity sufficient to
bring the caSe within the scope of Federal judicial power?

g. What is the purpose of and what are the
statutory provisions for removal of suits from State to
Federal Courts?



Topics for discussion
1. Oral argument:

Is it encouraged?

Is oratory discouraged?

How is the questioning by justices carried on during the
oral argument?

2. Conferences of the Justices:

You frequent and long are they?

Does every justice speak on every matter, whether an
important case or a minor motion?

In what order do they speak and Vote?

Does each justice state the pleadings, facts,an?argu-
ments as well as his conclusions, or is this done first by the Chief
Justice? Wust each justice state reasons for his vote?

3. Assignment by the Chief Justice of cases for opinion-writing:

Is the assignment made after discussion and vote at the
conference? Is the vote ever postponed until an opinion has been brought
in by one justice?

If the Chief Justice is in the majority of a divided
court does he always assign the Opinion-writing to one of the majority?

If the Chief Justice is in the minority of a divided
court who assigns the opinion-writing?

Does the Chief Justice have sole control over the assign-
ments? Are his assignments ever questioned?

4. Distribution of draft opinions in print, for consideration by
individual justic es in advance of conference:

Is this practice fo‘lowed and how is it carried out?

Is this followed by discussion of the draft opinions at
subsequent conferences?

TF3hat is the practice concerning recirculation of revised
opinions and writing dissents?

5. dehearings:
Are rehearings discouraged?
6. Form of handing down opinions:
Is it the practice to hand down opinions in writing which

are summarized orally from the bench by the justices who have written them
for the court?



Contempt of Court in Japan:


Unlike the American courts, Japanese courts do not have any broad
power to punish for contempt. The theory of inherent power to punish for
contempt to preserve the dignity and authority of the court does not exist
in Japanese law. Prior to the new Constitution adoptea in 1946 Japanese
judges, instead of being indeoendont, were under the executive branch of
the government, and as representatives of the Emperor apparently had no
difficulties in preserving order in the presence of the court.

Japanese penal law makes it a crime to interfere with or obstruct
official business (Art. 95, Penal Code), but this, of course, does not
permit the inposition of summary punishment, requiring instead the use of
regular procedures as in tie case of any other crime.

Authority for direct action by the court is severely limited. Under
Article 71 of the Court Organization Law (Law 59 of 1947), a court may
exclude from its presence anyone who interferes with its functions or who
behaves improperly and may "issue such other orders or take such measures
as are necessary for the maintenance of order”. This is not interpreted
as including authority to impose summary punishment. Under Article 71 (2)
the judge may call in the police to maintain order.

Under Articles 150, 160, 153 and 137 of the Criminal Code of Procedure
(Law 151 of 1948) the court has the power to impose by a ruling a fine up
to 3; 5,000 ($15.89) if a witness fails to appear when called, refuses to
testify, refuses to be sworn, or refuses to permit examination of his person.

Topics for Discussion:


l. NOCOSSity for authority to punish for contempt.

2. Discussion of types of conduct constituting direct and indirect
contempt, criminal and non—criminal contempt.

5. Nature of hearing in contempt proceedings: distinctions between
indirect, direct, criminal, and civil contempts; summary action by judge;
use of witnesses, affidavits, records, etc.; jury trial (in certain Federal

4. Role of prosecutor in contempt hearings.

5. Different types of punishments imposed; factors considered in
detennining punishment; fines; confinement; barring attorneys from further
participation in proceedings of the case; etc.


Arrangements will be made to attend any actual contempt hearings that
are in session in State or Federal courts.

In addition, topics will be discussed with judges and prosecutors.
If possible, it is desired to confer with the following:

1. Judge Medina, Federal District Court of New York, in connection
with the contempt proceedings in the conspiracy trial of the 11 Communists.

2. Judge Goldsborough, Federal District Court of the District of
Columbia, in connection with various contempt hearings over which he has
presided, particularly those involving labor disputes and labor leaders
such as John L. Lewis.

5. Judge George Harris, Federal District Court of California, Sa
Francisco, in connection with contempt proceedings in the Harry Bridges trial.




general, special non-legal problems in carnection with trials
Where there are severel defendants, e.g.: Comnuhist consciracv case tried

before Judge'fedine

2. lrran~enent for orderlv Urocedure i. e ch obese of the case:
b . _ .

decided by court, or bv agreement
3. Vumber of lawvers.nernitted each accused; exteet to which each

perticipete ie the trial

Gharin; of time as to opecing statements; argunents; closing

Limitatioee of witnesses
Craws—e' miniLion in Behalf of eech accused
7; Taintaining order; role of prosecutor fir this coenection
”risecutore and jud es, Feeeral and 9tete caurts, who have hed

experience Tith such trials



Preliminarv Statement


Since Japan has, under the Lawyers Law (No. 205 of 1949),
what is known in the United States as an integrated ban tfl€"'
bar associations are of great importance to the welfare and inde—
pendence of the profession and the supervision of its members.

There is one bar association for each of the 48 prefectures,
except thet for historical reasons there are three in Tokyo.
There is a national organization known as the Japan Federation
of Bar Associations which unifies and coordinates the activities
of the local associations. In order to practice all lawyers must
pass an exarinetion, be duly registered and become members of
their local association.

Bar associations are organized on a basis similar to associ—
ations in the United States