木谷 明（KITANI Akira）- 刑事裁判・事実認定、冤罪救済を専門とする法律家

木谷 明（きたに あきら、1937年–2024年）は、刑事裁判の事実認定と冤罪救済に取り組んだ日本の法律家。東京大学法学部を卒業し、1963年に裁判官となった。最高裁判所調査官、水戸地方裁判所長、東京高等裁判所部総括判事などを経て、2000年に退官。在職中は30件以上の無罪判決を言い渡した。2004年から2012年まで法政大学法科大学院で教え、その後は弁護士として大崎事件などの再審弁護に携わり、再審法の改正にも力を注いだ。実務経験をまとめた『刑事裁判の心――事実認定適正化の方策』では、供述や証拠をどのように吟味し、思い込みを排して事実を認定するかを、担当事件の検討とともに論じている。山田 隆司・嘉多山 宗を聞き手とする『「無罪」を見抜く――裁判官・木谷明の生き方』は、裁判官生活を振り返りながら、被告人の言い分に向き合う姿勢や、組織の中で独立した判断を貫く難しさを伝える回想録。さらに『違法捜査と冤罪』では、個々の事件で捜査手法と証拠の問題を検討し、誤った有罪判決を生む過程を一般読者に説明した。裁く側と弁護する側の双方の経験を通して、無実の人を罰しないために必要な証拠評価と手続の保障を問い続けた。

Akira Kitani (1937–2024) was a Japanese legal practitioner whose work focused on fact-finding in criminal trials and remedies for wrongful convictions. After graduating from the University of Tokyo’s Faculty of Law, he became a judge in 1963. His career included service as a Supreme Court judicial research official, chief judge of the Mito District Court and presiding judge at the Tokyo High Court. Before retiring from the judiciary in 2000, he delivered more than thirty acquittals. He taught at Hosei University Law School from 2004 to 2012, then practiced as a lawyer, joining retrial defense efforts including the Osaki case and advocating reform of Japan’s retrial procedures. Drawing on judicial experience, “Keiji Saiban no Kokoro: Jijitsu Nintei Tekiseika no Hosaku” examines how judges should evaluate testimony and evidence, avoid preconceptions and establish facts through careful scrutiny of individual cases. In “‘Muzai’ o Minuku: Saibankan Kitani Akira no Ikikata,” interviews conducted by Ryuji Yamada and Tsukasa Katayama connect his personal history with the responsibilities of judging, including the importance of listening to defendants and maintaining independent judgment within an institution. His later book “Iho Sosa to Enzai” considers how investigative methods and evidentiary failures can lead to wrongful convictions, explaining these problems through specific cases for a broader readership. Across his judicial, teaching and defense work, Kitani asked how the assessment of evidence and procedural safeguards could protect innocent people from punishment.