In light of the stipulation to assume to “know nothing about what the actual law is”, perhaps it should be mentioned that the highlighted is not universal in all jurisdictions.
Your thread title is misleading. It says the man is found guilty of murder. This implies that there has already been a trial and a verdict from the jury. The only thing left to be done in that case is for the judge to pass sentence.
Pretty sure this is an episode of Law & Order.
Bum Bum!
The expensive toy wasn’t a precious golden ring, by any chance? 
Does “used lethal force to stop the fight” translate to self-defense? If so, it sounds like we don’t know whether he killed his friend in self-defense, or whether he murdered his friend, and there’s no evidence either way.
In that case, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt would be out, as pertains to the killing itself. So no prosecution for the murder, and IMHO it makes no sense to charge him for keeping quiet about what happened.
In that case, he is not, in fact, guilty of murder, as it’s not proven beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn’t self defence. Therefore, he is innocent and should be treated as such.
So, if he was incorrectly found guilty of murder (as your title implies), he should be freed on appeal, and the judge who allowed the guilty verdict removed from his job.
FTFY
…and also
The purpose of prison is punishment
…and also
The purpose of prison is deterrence
…and also
The purpose of prison is to provide judicial compensation to the victims - in effect this is to acknowledge their pain, and offer closure where possible.This is a social transaction rather than financial
Japan used to have a statute of limitations on murders that was removed in 2010. I remember watching a drama series about solving cold cases that had previously been past the statute.
Please do not ever change the text inside of a quote box, for any reason. This is a long-standing rule, but there’s a current discussion on this very topic in ATMB, as well.
Thanks.
Juvenile, which this OP seems to have been ripped from.
BTW, she was acquitted.
What interests me is that, though an adult now, he would be tried as a juvenile. If found guilty, I’m wondering how the sentencing would work.
My first thought is: Jesus, I’m talking to a real live murderer! (And I’m oddly excited.) I know it’s highly unlikely that’s the case, but it was my first instinct.
Secondly, I would in my ignorance think that the killer would still get away scot-free. The investigating that would lead them to the correct killer would very likely be witness testimony and not DNA-evidence-related. Too much room for error with the human mind’s ability to retain accurate information, especially after 21 years have passed. Any testimony will most likely be heavily biased and incorrect.
Add ‘incapacitation’ to your list, but otherwise, I like it.
As to the OP, in your hypo we have a man who has confessed to a police officer that he killed someone 21 years prior, but would like to claim self-defense, right? Assuming the confession is eligible to be entered into evidence at trial, and that there is additional evidence that the death was a homicide, I don’t see why you wouldn’t be able to charge the man with murder or another lesser included offense. As already noted, there is no statute of limitations for murder in American jurisdictions.
I’d like to see more information about his possible assertion of self-defense as a justification for the death. What evidence is there to support his claim? What happened in the fight with his friend? Did the accused initiate the confrontation, and if so, would that matter in this jurisdiction?
But, by itself, there isn’t a problem with trying a 35 year old for a murder he committed when he was 14. You couldn’t give him the needle for it, after Roper v. Simmons, and I think LWOP is also out, but a prison sentence should be good to go after any guilty verdict.
He has, in fact, not plead guilty to anything.
He has admitted to the killing, but claims justification of self-defense.
If he is smart, he lawyers up and keeps his mouth shut. The D.A. has nothing on him. D.A. would most likely offer to let him plead to manslaughter with no jail time. His lawyer advises against this. In the end, charges are dropped. He walks.
BobArrgh fixed that for you already.
Years before Law & Order went on the air (or maybe during the early seasons, at best), there was some breaking national news about some Kennedy cousin who was turning himself in 35 years after killing a girl. For some reason, the newsworthiness seemed to be that he was a Kennedy, more than the 35-year delay.
–G!
Unless there is evidence that this was not self-defense I don’t think anything should happen. There are active threats out there that this detective could better be spending his time on. Save us from the ones who are killing today, that’s my attitude.
If the evidence should ever become available that what he did was actually murder, then he should be taken to trial, and serve his sentence.
Michael Skakel was convicted of the murder of Martha Moxley in 2002, 27 years after her death.
That admission to the killing may well be admissible, though. By admitting to the police, he may have generated the that will convict him. The prosecutor may be able to get that confession admitted even if the accused doesn’t testify.
Then the accused may have to testify, because the exculpatory evidence (“I did it in self-defence”) doesn’t come within a hearsay exception and the jury will never hear about self-defence - unless he testifies.
Seems like a lot of people are having a hard time with the “Assume you know nothing about what the actual law is” part.
My conclusion, based on not knowing the law, is: Execute him! Via bees. That’s what the law does with accused but unconvicted people, right?
Presuming a merely normal ignorance of law, I’m not seeing any route to conviction for murder if the evidence doesn’t dispute the self-defense claim. So we’ll have to let the guy go.