Quote Quoting Dave27701
View Post
And is found not guilty?
Despite your use of a question mark, this sentence fragment is not a question, and I have no clue what you might have intended to ask.


Quote Quoting Dave27701
View Post
Say since this happens ALOT.
"Alot" (or "ALOT") isn't a word, and what you have described happens rarely or never.


Quote Quoting Dave27701
View Post
The prosecutor has exculptary evidence which he knows for a fact will push the entire case in his favor after months of trial. He's such a sjw and wants to desperately believe he killed his wife for example and doesn't want to Lose a case and really only cares about winning the case and not so much the murder even though on the front he says he cares about the victim when really he wants to win as the prosecutor. He already knows witness statements, and camera evidence shows the guy was thousands of miles away from the scene of the crime but somehow he suppresses that evidence.
This is really confusing. From a strict grammatical reading, all of the pronouns in these sentences refer to the prosecutor, but that doesn't appear to be what you intended. Also, "exculpatory" refers to evidence that has is or may be beneficial to the defendant. Exculpatory evidence most certainly would not "push the entire case in [the prosecutor's] favor." Also, it is quite rare for a trial to take "months."


Quote Quoting Dave27701
View Post
The defendant knowing he's about to lose low key decides to make a statement. He says that he loves his wife. . . .
I have no idea what "lose low key" might mean, but this is about the point where the defense attorney would grab the defendant and tell him to stop talking and the judge would tell the defendant to sit down and be quiet.


Quote Quoting Dave27701
View Post
What happens? Would this be allowed?
Of course not.


Quote Quoting Dave27701
View Post
would the prosecutor cry
What a strange and apparently silly question.


Quote Quoting Dave27701
View Post
Should the jury explain that his statement was the key reason why they came with a not guilty verdict. . . .
Juries don't explain their verdicts. However, if we're going to live in a fantasy world where a defendant can just get up in the middle of a trial and give a speech, then the jury should probably inform the sentient worm that is acting as a bailiff that they'd like to perform an interpretive dance routine.


Quote Quoting Dave27701
View Post
What if the jury also secretly (although they wouldn't need to and mostly the statement itself would be enough) decide to have one of them hire someone to secretly investigate his whereabouts on the day of the murder
That would be juror misconduct that Emperor Zarlak from the Planet Fremulon would deal with quite harshly. Also, the marshmallow people would likely squelch any attempt at an investigation.