The court may also interpret written instruments received in evidence without the aid of the jury.
After all the evidence has been presented, the two counsels, first for the defendant (the person against whom the action is brought) and then for the plaintiff or prosecution (who brought the action to court), address the jury, reviewing the evidence in the case and commenting on it in a manner favourable to that counsel's side of the case. The judge then sums up to the jury. The summing-up is a statement of the rules of law applicable to the evidence in that particular case. It is given in order to aid the jury in rendering a correct verdict. .
The jury then retires from the courtroom to begin its deliberations, which continue until an agreement as to the verdict is reached, or until the presiding judge deems that the jury cannot reach an agreement. The latter case is known as a hung jury. In the event that no agreement is reached, a new trial may be called. All members of a jury should agree on a verdict, which in a criminal trial will be "guilty- or "not guilty-. If, however, the members the jury have failed to agree after a period, the judge may accept a verdict by a majority of 11 to 1 or 10 to 2. The verdict of a jury is decisive and cannot be disturbed unless rendered contrary to law or against the weight of evidence. In such a case the verdict may be. It is their job to decide the truth with the help of factual evidence they are given in the legal proceeding and to give a social verdict on that specific case, Professor Blackstone once said;.
"The jury are the bulwark of our liberties-.
The case of Bushell 1617 became a major milestone in the history of juries. Before this case judges tended to bully the juries into convicting the defendant, particularly where the crime had political overtones, but in bushells case it was established that the jury were the sole judges of the facts that were presented, with the right to give a verdict according to their personal conscience, and could not be penalised for taking a view of the facts, which differed from the view of the judge.