In an audiobook I’m listening to, a middle-aged, well-respected family man admits that, when he was 17, he murdered his girlfriend in a fit of rage. He got away with it (there was no physical evidence at the crime scene, and police ruled out other suspects; the murderer was never even a suspect) and spent the next 30 years as a devoted husband and father. He didn’t even get so much as a speeding ticket.
Let’s say that he confessed to the murder here, 30 years later… OK, lots of people confess to crimes they didn’t commit. But this guy is credible - his story adds up, he’s not known to be in anything but the soundest of sound minds, the police didn’t torture it out of him, etc. The problem is, there’s absolutely zero evidence to tie him to the crime. No DNA, no physical evidence, no one saw him at the crime scene - hell, no one even knew that he knew the victim.
In these circumstances, would the prosecutors still try to get a conviction?
This story takes place in Australia, but assume it takes place in the US or UK or wherever you’re typing from.
Agreed. But I think in the OP’s scenario they knew the girl had been murdered, but there was just no evidence tying this guy to the crime. So, there is evidence of a crime absent the confession. Therefore, I think the confession would be admissible. If he didn’t later recant (with a good story) I imagine a conviction would not be difficult.
On a second reading, I agree with you. It sounds like they could prove that this woman was killed without solely relying upon his confession to establish the death.
If they have a cold case department and her case is one of those, I’m sure they’d start trying to tie him to the case in other ways in case the confession falls through.
I see things like it on Dateline all the time. Maybe not a confession, but a witness comes forward or a divorce makes the wife no longer support his alibi.
Most of these homicide guys want justice for the families in the worst way. They try hard to get a case, even years and years later.
No matter what there would need to be probable cause for an arrest and indictment. Since it was done “In a fit of rage” there might not have been evidence pointing to a suspect but there was evidence of a crime. Unless the confession was “I did it” without further questions answered they could use his statement to tie into the evidence at the scene.
A much more difficult scenario is if it was the perfect murder. The death was ruled natural. The body was cremated. No evidence whatsoever. Then it would be difficult to get probable cause.
I think that they would interrogate him about the details of the crime and see if it matched the evidence they had collected. If he knew a number of details that hadn’t been made public than that might be used as evidence against him. On the other hand if his story doesn’t fit then they kick him out the door possibly with a citation for wasting police time.
I would expect a prosecutor would want to independently obtain some evidence that corroborates the confession in case the suspect decides to plead not guilty or to challenge the confession.
I’m less sure if the prosecutor would also want to ensure that the suspect is actually guilty and not protecting someone or pursuing a crazy scheme.
Yes, the OP indicates this was known to be a homicide, there were suspects the police ruled out at the time. But it will still be difficult to connect him to the crime unless he doesn’t have competent legal representation. If it’s a capital case and makes it to trial the judge will not let the man represent himself under these circumstances because it so easy to counter his own confessions based on the lack of physical evidence while at the same time he is intimately familiar with the decedent, not to mention his mental health is questionable also.
If the guy is confessing then, presumably, he’s willing to say more than just, “I did it.”
As an example, if he disposed of a weapon then he might be able to help it be located; he might be able to describe what it was so that the wounds could be compared; and the description might allow the police to verify that the weapon was purchased and went missing.
He would be able to describe the details of the wounds on the body; he would be able to provide a motive, and possibly give evidence for it.
Once you know the answer, creating the evidence becomes not entirely undoable.
But there have been people who have confessed to things that they didn’t do. You really would want to check the story and see to it that his evidence stood up.
I think the bolding is right - if there is no direct evidence of his involvement, then it has to be indirect but still plausible, eg he had been in the Conservatory, and his fingerprints were on the candlestick, and the gap in video coverage at the right time allows that he could have done it.
But, as a non-lawyer but avid TV watcher I understand that level of circumstantial evidence would not provide a safe conviction in a normal murder. Would accepting it as sufficient in this case create a precedent that would undermine other legal principles?
What’s the scenario - is the person then recanting hs confession? Other wise, presumably, is he pleading guilty? Or is the concern for the OP that the charge would be thrown out at the preliminary hearing for lack of any reasonable evidence? If the defendant is confessing and promising to plead guilty, can the prosecutor skip arraingment and/or preliminary hearing?
Yes, the first step is to get details in the confession that only the killer would know. Often the police hold back certain details, just for this reason. Knowing details that nobody else should know - reasonable grounds for a charge if other details agree - like motive, opportunity. i.e. was he at the right place at the time, not halfway across the country or already in jail? (has happened)
I wonder what the legality is if the defendant then recants? Is the recant not admissible? I would imagine if the only evidence is a recandted confession, with no details to corroborate, then there’s no way to convict.
Can the judge reject a guilty plea if he smells something fishy?
I recall reading somewhere that corpus delicti only applies at the state level but at the federal level, they use something called “corroboration” instead? (although it was never explained how that’s any different than corpus delicti)
I imagine there must be cases where the person confessing could either be telling the complete truth or could have constructed the entire thing based on details that are known to the public.
For example: person goes missing, news channels publish pictures of them including pictures and descriptions of where they were last seen and what they were wearing.
If the body isn’t found until a decade later and it’s just a few scattered bones in a bit of forest by a roadside and there is no obvious way to determine the exact cause of death, it would be fairly easy for the person confessing to just make up enough of a story, such that the intervening time and conditions have obscured any small details that could be used to either corroborate or contradict it. Or they could be telling the truth.
I don’t think there’s necessarily a contradiction here. Suppose there was some detail from the crime scene unreported to the public, a detail that had no clear ties to the confessor. When the guy confesses he mentions the unknown-to-the-public detail.
“Yeah, I wrote ‘Helter Skelter’ with the refrigerator magnets. Did you guys even notice that?”
If he can provide that kind of information, he’s linking himself to the crime. We’re positing a guy who says “yep, I did it!” but there’s no way whatsoever to corroborate it.
That’s how the OP sounds to me. There should be no way to convict him. In reality there is usually more to it, but also in reality people sometimes confess to crimes they didn’t commit. The evidence we know of conforms more to the latter circumstance.