Defendant: Ogimoto, Yoshio, Civilian Guard, Zentsuji PW Camp, Zentsuji,
Shikoku, Japan
Docket No./ Date: 70/ April 3-11, 1947, Yokohama, Japan
Charge: Violation of the laws and customs of war: Spec. 1. Did willfully
and unlawfully abuse and mistreat PWS, by beating, kicking and cuffing
them. Spec. 2. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and abuse numerous
PWs by beating and striking them.
Specifications: beating and striking using among others fists, sticks,
bayonets, rifle butts and leather wristband; kicking using hobnailed shoes;
Verdict: 5 years CHL
Reviewing Authority's Recommendations: Accused wore a leather wristband
due to injury in right arm; this wristband was used to strike PWs across
the face without provocation or cause or under apparently minor infractions.
PWs were also kicked by accused without provocation or cause or under
apparently minor infractions. The beatings would take place on a frequent
basis.
Reviewing Authority: Accused was never seen beating, striking or otherwise
mistreating PWs; no complaints were received concerning the accused; the
accused could not use his right hand at all because of the injury; accused
wore a wrist support but wore an olive drab or black glove over the wrist
support. He never worked side by side with the civilian guard, Hashimoto.
He never beat, struck, or otherwise mistreated any PWs; he did carry a
sword but never beat or struck PWs with it. He saw the civilian guard
Hashimoto wearing a leather wrist band which had a narrow iron band on
the hand portion. (Mistaken identity, as summed up by reviewer.)
Prosecution Arguments: Due to the conflict in affidavits between the
two individuals involved in specification 1 as to the identity and the
number of perpetrators, the commission resolved the doubt in favor of
the accused and acquitted him. With reference to spec 2, the reviewer
found that the same doubt did not exist because the affidavits clearly
identified the accused and identified, separately, the other civilian
guard, Hashimoto. The reviewer discussed the issue of omnibus specifications,
the appropriateness of them to the nature of war crimes and whether the
wording of the specification apprises the accused of "each offense
charged" under the omnibus specification. The reviewer found that
the specification did not violate the rights of the accused because the
for did "not tend to the prejudice of the defendant." In fact,
the reviewer states that another ground for "sustaining the legality
of the omnibus specification is that it safeguards the interest of the
accused. Where the accused has been tried on the omnibus specification,
he is protected from any future trial for similar offenses which he may
have committed at the place and during the period alleged in the omnibus
specification." The evidence presented was sufficient for the finding
of guilt.
Defense Arguments: F. R. Undritz, Lt. Col., Inf., Asst. Staff Judge Advocate
Judge Advocate's Recommendations:
