What about in cases where the prosecution committed no illegal activities in the duration of the trial? The defendant might be innocent of the crime but say tha

What about in cases where the prosecution committed no illegal activities in the duration of the trial? The defendant might be innocent of the crime but say that he has no alibi, there's physical evidence from him at the crime scene, and he has a motive. This could be something as benign as a man gets fired from his job. He job involved working with knives in a kitchen. That night, his boss is stabbed to death at the restaurant during a robbery while he's the only one there. Video evidence is grainy but it appears to be a similar car as the suspect leaving the scene. His DNA and fingerprints are all over the knife but the killer was wearing gloves. None of the stolen goods/money surfaced during the investigation. Our suspect was out dealing massive quantities of illegal drugs or maybe having lots of sex with hookers so his alibi is none, being home alone doesn't work. A jury could easily be convinced to convict this man if he had a poor defense attorney. A few years later after he's been in prison, a video surfaces from an undercover DEA operation of him dealing drugs or maybe a cellphone video of him with hookers. Either way, he is exonerated shortly after the video's time stamp is verified. What should happen to the prosecution? The evidence pointed strongly at him and he had no way to beat the charges without incriminating himself in other illegal activities. Should the prosecution be sent to jail? Doesn't seem fair as everything looked legitimate. The jury determined guilt on the evidence in the first place. You can't punish the prosecution for getting it wrong unless they committed illegal or unconstitutional activities to win the case.