This is why statute of limitations exists. People can’t be punished for very old crimes.

@Mariah could you be a little more specific about the statute of limitations? Like how long can it take for it to run out?

P.S: I got this idea partly from the first game of the Ace Attorney series

Staute of limitations doesn’t apply to murder.

I don’t know too much about it personally. Upon further reading, it seems there’s no statute of limitations for murder. However, I don’t think this case you describe is a murder, seems it’s a manslaughter.

@Mariah So if I were a judge what should I do? I’m about to put John in jail, is it OK?

I’m far from an expert on it, but I’m not so sure that jailing him would be legal.

There is no statute of limitations on murder in any US state. However, a judge does have the authority to throw out murder charges for cold cases when the delay violates the defendant’s right to a fair and speedy trial. This is what I think most judges would do here. I mean, a 20-year-old case with a defendant that was 8 at the time? Come on…

Even so, how is this a murder case? A child accidentally killed somebody.

Did I tell you I got this idea partly from the Ace Attorney series? Moreover, it’s just an idea of a big story. I just want to test how it can happen in reality.

Anyway, it’s a little silly idea right?

@Mariah So he says. They’d have to charge him with murder for anything to happen. If it was discovered during the trial that no murder took place, he’d be let go because there IS a statute of limitations on manslaughter. Regardless, I seriously doubt he would go to trial either way.

In the first place, a trial for one case where evidence from an unsolved crime arose – even with the purported confession – would not result in any kind of instantaneous verdict against the alleged confessor of the old crime, no matter how believable the confession is in open court.

A judge in this case would ask the prosecutor (or a policeman in the courtroom, perhaps even a bailiff) to read the person his Miranda rights and take him into custody. (He would probably also have to declare a mistrial in the current case because of the notoriety of the confession and the confusion that it would cause among the jurors – provided this was all heard in open court and in front of the jury.) One expects that the prosecutor, even if he didn’t quite believe it all, would have to mount a serious investigation, if only for the political reason that this is so open and so public and such a notorious crime.

The prior unsolved case would otherwise have no bearing on the current trial, except to the extent that witnesses and circumstances directly bore on both, and the previously unsolved case would be reopened with the current confessor as, of course, the likely prime suspect.

As an 8-year-old at the time of the “crime”, if it was still so investigated and pursued, would probably be tried in juvenile court because of the age of the alleged suspect at the time of the incident, and any ruling of guilt against that person would likely result in a null verdict, since the penalty at the time would most likely have been incarceration in a juvenile facility until age 21, and then an evaluation to determine “likelihood to re-offend” (this part is hazy in my own mind; would require some good research), and most likely release.

Since the person is now 30 years old, and, one assumes, a generally law-abiding person, there would be no additional penalty.

@CWOTUS According to what you say, here should be what happens next: John will be taken in custody while the police look into the unsolved case again (let assume it was a notorious case). And then they find out John really guilty (it’s my intention. John is telling the truth). John will then be put in jail. Is it correct?

Well…

“The police” don’t get to make the final call to “find out John [is] really guilty”. All they can do is investigate to determine whether a case can be made and evidence collected to support that charge. (They may have “put him in jail” pending an indictment / arraignment, at which time he may be offered bail. Considering that he would have been an 8-year-old at the time of the incident, and assuming he is now a respected member of the community, he’d probably be granted a reasonable bail and would be out of jail pending a trial – if one will even be held.)

The prosecutor decides whether a charge should be brought and what the charge should be, and then he charges John with the crime – if he will – and a court date is set to begin the trial. The jury (or judge, if John elects not to have a jury trial), is the determiner of guilt or innocence, and the judge sets the verdict in accordance with state law. I don’t know of any states that will jail an 8-year-old for a crime of this magnitude (I can’t imagine a state locking up an 8-year-old for any crime, since the mens rea or “guilty mind” can’t be well established at that age), so whether John did the deed or not, he would probably walk out of court a free man. But the crime would have been resolved, which may be important to the families of the victim (and John).

An 8 yr. old that “accidentally ” kills someone is not a murderer. Case solved/closed.

@CWOTUS Thanks for the information. I think you are thinking the question is a little unbelievable. That’s right because it’s not at all a real case. It’s made up by me, and it’s a part of a detective story. Anyway, you’ve helped me made up my mind. I know now what to do with my idea, thanks to you.

@Coloma I know that already. I just want to know what the judge will react to that situation.

@CWOTUS One more question, before I forgot: if the 1929 case really has a connection to the current case which John was a witness to, can there be another trial held?

@Mimishu1995 Impossible to say, depending on the judge.

How the judge will react depends on the judge. Is he a progressive, or a wrathful conservative?
Is he compassionate with common sense, or is he a stickler for vengeance and punishment?
And because it is the 50s: is John black?

John is white and the judge has enough common sense (he wasn’t involved in the case after all)

I think that time John was a kid & I don’t think so he know much about the murder and all other stuff. That was an accident not a murdered so, I think I should release the John.

I don’t know if I understand exactly where you’re coming from with the final question, @Mimishu1995, but “there can be a trial” from any crime, assuming that the statute of limitations has not been exceeded for the commission of that crime.

For example, John can’t be prosecuted 20-odd years later for “shoplifting” (I have no idea what the limit is on a shoplifting or petite larceny, but surely it’s not as long as 20 years). However, as others have pointed out already, there is no statute of limitations on homicide. If a prosecutor believes that he can make a case for a deliberate murder, he can prosecute that case no matter how far back in history it occurred – as long as he’s prosecuting a defendant who is alive (or presumed to be, since the defendant in certain rare cases may not have been present, I think).

For an interesting twist, how about a case in which John has been skillfully and unknowingly convinced by someone else that he was “guilty” of accidentally killing a victim, and has lived with that “knowledge” (false memory) for all of these years? That’s actually more believable to me than the fact that police with even rudimentary interest or competence could fail to discover an 8-year-old shooter from the evidence at the scene, if a child actually did the deed. I can’t imagine an 8-year-old being cold-blooded enough to pull off that crime and not give away any indication (including the physical evidence concerning line-of-fire, the weapon itself, including fingerprints (and don’t forget fingerprints on the shell of the bullet), and the trace evidence that firing a gun leaves behind. Police in the 1920s weren’t really stupid; they may not have had today’s tools and specialized detection methods and training, but they knew how to solve many crimes – and it’s hard for an 8-year-old to be so in control of his emotions that he would give nothing away for all those years.

Of course, you may have had some other method of “accidental killing” in mind than a shooting. But that puts some limits on your plotting, because it’s difficult to kill “accidentally” with a knife or a garrote, for example.

For your plot suggestion, @CWOTUS, you’ve got me. I decided not to give that detail because I want a big surprise for my readers.

Here’s how it goes: at the time of the murder James and John (and someone who was close to John) were in the same room. Something happened and everyone got stuck in the room. At that time the room was pitch black. Oxygen began to run out. James had an argument with that person. Seeing the situation get intense, John picked up a gun and threw at James to stop him from harming the person. James died afterward from a gunshot wound. The horrified John and the person lost consciousness right after that. When the police arrived the gun had gone. There was no sign of another person entering the room. The police believed the person to be the killer but he was carrying no gun at the time of the murder (that’s why the case remained unsolved). Nevertheless, the person insisted that he did it to protect John and was brought to trial, much to John’s dismay. As to John, he lost part of the memory of what happened due to lack of oxygen and “self-defense” (he was horrified of what happened and traumatized of seeing his loved one got a guilty verdict). He didn’t really know he was the killer.

Several years later, John grew up and become a private detective. In 1951 he took a case (the “current case” I mentioned earlier). John soon found out a connection between the current case and the 1929 case. He was forced to look into the 1929 case again and after investigation he came to the conclusion that he may be the killer of the 1929 case. At first he refused to believe it and tried to run away. But as it became more and more essential that both case had to be solved, he accepted the harsh “truth” (hence the trial mentioned in the question). But John’s friend (another PI and was also looking into the 1929 case) sensed something unusual about John’s testimony and felt that John may be innocent. After the trial he tried to persuade John to look into the case once more with his help and promised to find the true killer.

That’s part of the so-far plot. You’ve been attacked by spoiler!

If I were the judge, I would probably not prosecute for the old murder done when John was eight years old unless it supports a lifetime of malice and other crimes.

@KNOWITALL Would you adjudicate the old murder if you were the prosecutor? ;-)

It turns out that John killed James by accident.
It was an accident, was it a boni fide accident; John was playing with his father’s gun and fired into the woods or a bush in which James was behind, hidden from sight? Was it due to negligence on the part of John, did he, for instance, toss bags of marbles onto the roadway as James was riding down on his motorcycle, causing him to lose control and crash into a tree fatally or plummet into a gully, etc.? Accident says manslaughter, how it happened sets the degree of manslaughter. Once that is determined, then I (as judge) can go to the laws on the books and see if there are any statutes of limitations to be applied, or if by law a minor can be even charged with a crime in spite it being an accident they caused.