**Tomorrow, the 13th, Argument Set for Expedited Trial**
The Constitutional Court is scheduled to hold two more hearings for the impeachment trial of President Yoon Suk Yeol. The court has refrained from scheduling additional hearings and is accelerating the trial process, garnering attention for the anticipated timing of the verdict.
The court plans to conclude the examinations of the witnesses already selected by the upcoming 13th (8th hearing). Even if additional witnesses like Prime Minister Han Duck-soo are accepted, the trial may conclude as early as the end of this month. A verdict would then be issued 2 to 3 weeks later. For former President Park Geun-hye, the verdict came 11 days after conclusion, while for former President Roh Moo-hyun, it took 14 days.
There’s a possibility of scheduling one or two more hearings considering President Yoon’s interrogation and final statements. The legal community notes, “The duration of the trial can vary based on the situation, but it seems the Constitutional Court is hastening as if a March verdict is predetermined.”
**Time Limit of ’90 Minutes Per Witness’ with Stopwatch**
Starting with former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyeon on the 23rd of last month, the court is examining military commanders involved in the emergency martial law. Key witnesses were interrogated, including former National Intelligence Service (NIS) Deputy Director Hong Jang-won. Despite their importance, each witness was given a total of 90 minutes for cross-examination, with 30 minutes allocated to each side and an additional 15 minutes each if needed.
A red stopwatch has been installed in the courtroom, and Acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae is enforcing strict time limits, using the stopwatch even when circumstances change during testimony. When President Yoon’s team requested an additional three minutes during their examination of a witness, it was not granted.
In response, President Yoon’s team released a statement on the 8th, lamenting that the time constraints prevented them from adequately verifying facts, despite inconsistencies in testimonies. A court official stated that the stopwatch ensures fair proceedings but is not used rigidly if the court deems it necessary; for instance, additional time was allocated during Minister Kim’s examination.
**Four Key Witnesses Scheduled for 7th and 8th Hearings**
On the 11th and 13th, four witnesses were summoned each day. Chairman Kim Bong-sik and Security Battalion Commander Jo Sung-hyun were added as witnesses and scheduled for the 13th, joining NIS Director Cho Tae-yong and Korean National Police Agency Commissioner Jo Ji-ho, who is being recalled after non-appearance. Concerns have been raised about the consolidation of core witness examinations into a single day, which could impact thoroughness.
A total of 15 witnesses have been approved to date. Prime Minister Han and Counterintelligence Department Chief Lee Kyung-min, requested by President Yoon’s side, were postponed. Other requests for approximately 20 individuals, including Acting Chairperson Choi Chang-mok and Korea Communications Commission member Lee Jin-sook, were rejected.
During former President Park Geun-hye’s impeachment trial, 25 witnesses were called, yet rarely four per day. Key witnesses had extended testimonies exceeding six hours. One constitutional scholar remarked that while expeditious trials are essential, substantive review should not be compromised for speed.
The court explained that trial schedules and methods are predominantly decided through deliberations involving all justices.
**”Pre-shared Questionnaires… Undermining Credibility”**
The court requires the submission of questionnaires for cross-examination in advance, a move that has sparked debate. Both sides are compelled to share their intended questions. President Yoon’s team criticized this as unique to the Constitutional Court, arguing against revealing cross-examination subjects beforehand, which can undermine the spontaneity intended for challenging the opposition’s positions. Professor Lee Chang-hyun of Hankuk University expressed concerns over predictable questioning, which differs from practices in criminal trials where such preparation with witnesses is prohibited.
In return, a court spokesperson clarified that the procedure is equally applied without coercion, noting that many significant witnesses are detained, reducing the risk of collusion.