"Mr. Jacobs, then 16, and a childhood friend, Roy Bridgewater, then 17, both black, burst into an occupied home in Marrero, a white suburb. The teenagers stole guns and jewelry and raced away in a minivan." In other words, they were working in concert. Together. As partners. They came in together, and they left together.
In your hypothetical, one person does the crime, unknown to the other person, who then appears on the scene and is thought to have done the crime. That's a very different situation.
In fact, that difference would certainly be noted when it came down to deciding whether the law considered the two people to be equally guilty.
I know of a case in which a group of about 5 black teenagers burst into a black home. In the home were a number of middle-aged black adults. They were using drugs. The "teens" made them all strip down to their underwear. They robbed them. The "teens" had some big, powerful guns. Then the "teens" fled. As the little gang was running away, some of the victims came to the door and started shooting at them. Some of the "teens" shot back as they were running away. One of the "teens" (the robbers) was shot dead in his tracks. Guess who went on trial for murder, because of his death? His fellow robbers. Yes--even though the bullet came from the gun of one of the victims. It was their robbery scheme that, in the beginning, caused the "teen's" death. No one would have been shooting at them if they hadn't been running away from a violent robbery.