My question involves criminal law for the state of: California
And is found not guilty?
Say since this happens ALOT. 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.
The defendant knowing he's about to lose low key decides to make a statement. He says that he loves his wife and is devastated she's been murdered and he had nothing to do with it and wishes he could go back in time and be with her again. He says he believed in justice but then quickly says that this trial is just a charade, a fraud for the people so the government can excersise power and convict and innocent person just to "satisfy" the people with a guilty verdict and a closed case, and quickly slips in and directly faced and tells the jury that the prosecutor has suppressed key evidence that proves he wasn't even within a thousand miles of his wife on that day and there are dozens of witnesses and cameras all of which were not allowed as evidence in court, and if they were the jury would see the truth. Obviously the defendant is breaching the conduct of court, he gets contempt charges and the judge quickly has him taken out of the court and the judge tries and makes the jury believe and agree to dismiss those statements and not consider or talk or think or even mention about what he said. Even the court reporter is told not to record that statement. The jury deliberates and then returns with a not guilty verdict. Judge gets mad and calls them names and also gives the defendant 365 days in jail for contempt of court, however he's still not guilty.
What happens? Would this be allowed? Or would the prosecutor cry and demand a new trial or something?
Should the jury explain that his statement was the key reason why they came with a not guilty verdict or should they keep it hidden and just claim they didn't find the evidence sufficient enough even though it was?
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 and discover he was thousands of miles away, and one of them mentions it during deliberation even though it's illegal and they vote not guilty based on that but no one finds out what they did? Do you think this would be true justice or should the jury listen to the judge and take it in the ass by the tag teaming prosecutor and judge and return the guilty verdict as they were already selected to begin with to have the highest chance of a guilty verdict anyway and go with that because who cares right? They're not going to prison for life after having lost their wife and been devastated now everyone also on top will believe the innocent defendant did it and he will be in prison for life for something he didn't commit. Two terrible things at once