As a British person, I am strictly forbidden from revealing what the jury deliberations were in any particular case.
However, in general terms: these guys are, usually, idiots. Sometimes innocent idiots whose act of monumental stupidity led to them being accused of a crime they did not commit, but still: idiots.
There is a third possibility that can, in theory, be encountered: everyone is lying. Prosecution witnesses, defense witnesses, all of them: lying. Imagine that the prosecution case rests entirely on some tall story about Ritchie Bottoms. You don’t believe he even exists, you don’t believe the prosecution witnesses. Oh, but the defendant:: you don’t believe him, either. Did he do it? No idea. Shrug. But you know the prosecutor doesn’t have a case if he can’t do better than this guy with an implausible story about Ritchie Bottoms.
Also, under British rules the judge can halt a case and instruct the jury to acquit. E.g. if the prosecution witness, under cross-examination, admits that their story about Ritchie Bottoms isn’t true, (and hence, the prosecution does not have a case), the judge can just stop the trial right there and instruct the jury to acquit.
As a British person, I am strictly forbidden from revealing what the jury deliberations were in any particular case.
However, in general terms: these guys are, usually, idiots. Sometimes innocent idiots whose act of monumental stupidity led to them being accused of a crime they did not commit, but still: idiots.
There is a third possibility that can, in theory, be encountered: everyone is lying. Prosecution witnesses, defense witnesses, all of them: lying. Imagine that the prosecution case rests entirely on some tall story about Ritchie Bottoms. You don’t believe he even exists, you don’t believe the prosecution witnesses. Oh, but the defendant:: you don’t believe him, either. Did he do it? No idea. Shrug. But you know the prosecutor doesn’t have a case if he can’t do better than this guy with an implausible story about Ritchie Bottoms.
Also, under British rules the judge can halt a case and instruct the jury to acquit. E.g. if the prosecution witness, under cross-examination, admits that their story about Ritchie Bottoms isn’t true, (and hence, the prosecution does not have a case), the judge can just stop the trial right there and instruct the jury to acquit.