He is likely pretty safe in knowing that the jury is clueless.
The missus was on a jury for a murder trial...probably the first such crime in 25-years in our little community.
After the trial was completed she told me what the judge's instructions to the jury were and I was absolutely amazed at how judges think they have the power to tell juries how to decide a case.
I would have told the jury to disregard the instructions from the judge and decide on the evidence.
I was on two juries for two different civil cases in King county superior court in Seattle. Both lasted around a month.
In both cases, when we were excused to deliberate and reach a verdict, the first thing I did when we were behind closed doors was explain jury nullification to the jury. This was in the mid-1980’s. The easiest way to wrap it up was to tell them this: The judge only has a right to ask each one of us, individually, what our personal vote was. He can’t ask why. It means you can find for one side because you didn’t like the way the other side combs their hair.
Of course, reason and common sense should prevail, but we can completely ignore anything the judge said. He’s not the jury. He doesn’t decide. We do.