Supreme Court rules written sentencing recommendations by prosecutors are undesirable

The Supreme Court ruled on May 8 that prosecutors submitting written sentencing recommendations after closing arguments is an undesirable practice. While such submissions do not inherently violate procedural laws, the high court stated they risk undermining a defendant's right to a fair trial if they prevent meaningful rebuttal during final statements.

In its judgment on fraud case 2025Do10476, the court emphasized that criminal procedure law mandates oral arguments to ensure the substantive guarantee of defense rights. Prosecutors must present their opinions on facts and legal application verbally after evidence examination concludes, allowing defendants and lawyers to offer final counterarguments.

The bench noted that a prosecutor's sentencing recommendation constitutes a formal argument subject to the rule of oral debate and should be delivered verbally in open court rather than submitted as documents after the fact. Shifting this component to a written format deprives the defense of the opportunity to immediately address the proposed penalty during their final statement.

However, the court clarified that a written submission alone does not constitute a fatal error warranting the overturning of a verdict. A judgment remains valid unless the specific circumstances essentially infringe upon the defendant's defense rights or render the trial process fundamentally unfair.