Suppose the Jury is in deliberation and is going over the facts presented in court.
Not only do they realize the defendant is not guilty, but discover conclusively that someone else committed the crime.
May the jury present their findings to the court, or must they just render the not guilty verdict and just leave it at that?
WAG. Their oath requires them to render a verdict in accordance with the facts presented in court during the trial. If they really think that those facts show that the defendant didn’t commit the crime they vote “Not Guilty” and then after the trial take their interpretation of the facts to the Presecuter.
And the Presecuter would in turn tell the Prosecuter. :rolleyes:
What if the guilty person were on the jury?
Better yet, what if the guilty person were the Prosecutor?
It’s been done (don’t click if you want to avoid the spoiler).
Or what if the guilty person is the judge, like in that Cher movie? Would he be ethically required to recuse himself?
Seriously, how bad would both the prosecutor and the defense attorney have to be not to be able to eliminate the actual guilty person from the jury, not because they discover his or her guilt but through standard voir dire questioning?
Moonstruck?
Sorry, if you want to know you’ll have to watch all of Cher’s movies for yourself.
Well…, a Presecuter would pretty much *have * to be the first to know…
See…this is why I could never serve on a jury. Screw the oath. I could never take it. I could never “disregard” things the judge tells me to. Screw him, too. I make up my own mind, always.
Oh, well. Gets me out of jury duty. 
That’s “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Grrr…
“You Honor, we call Your Honor to the stand.”
Not enough rolleyes on the planet for that line.