In particular, the verdict hinged on some technicalities, and we got about 40 pages explaining the law. I attempted to clarify the exact meaning, but in the end

In particular, the verdict hinged on some technicalities, and we got about 40 pages explaining the law. I attempted to clarify the exact meaning, but in the end eleven others and I were forced to decide for ourselves. There's good motivation for this: the jury's job (in a criminal case, at least) is to decide whether or not the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charge in question. Not to determine if that fact could be established by a more competent prosecution. Step one in proving that someone has broken the law is making sure that the jury understands the details of the law well enough to understand the accusation, including (and in particular!) any technicalities that might be involved. If the prosecution hasn't done that, then there's plenty of reasonable doubt to be found, and that's a crystal clear "not guilty".