On November 27, Hideo Yamada, the chief public prosecutor at the Shizuoka District Public Prosecutors Office, apologized to Iwao Hakamada at his residence in Hamamatsu, Shizuoka Prefecture. Hakamada, who spent many years on death row, was officially acquitted in September by a retrial court, marking the conclusion of his criminal case that began in the 1960s. Despite the prosecutors deciding not to appeal the verdict and the formal apology extended to Hakamada, some prosecutors within the office expressed reluctance to move on from the case.

In October, Prosecutor General Naomi Unemoto issued a statement that highlighted her “strong dissatisfaction” with the court's decision during the retrial, particularly regarding the allegations that evidence had been fabricated against Hakamada. Prosecutors have since emphasized their belief in the validity of certain evidence, such as five specific articles of clothing purportedly worn by Hakamada during the 1966 murder of a family of four. They have also contested the timeline established by the court, arguing that their presentation of evidence was consistent with procedural standards rather than tampering.

This situation has led to internal divisions within the prosecution. Some prosecutors assert that the court made a grave mistake in its ruling, justifying the general prosecutor's critical statement. Conversely, other members within the prosecution contend that such public expressions of discontent with a final judgment could damage the integrity of the justice system. Hakamada's defense team has vocally opposed the prosecutors' claims, calling for the retraction of Unemoto's statement, which they believe suggests Hakamada's guilt.

Legal analysts have condemned the prosecutors for their continued challenges to a ruling that has already been settled, insisting that any grievances should be addressed within the courtroom rather than through public declarations. With Hakamada's defense considering a lawsuit for damages, the dispute regarding the alleged evidence manipulation remains at the forefront of this legal controversy, suggesting that the matter is still very much alive in the legal arena.