Judge in a Jury Trial

In which jurisdiction? New Guinea? Siberia? Or somewhere else?

Tes yeaux-

United States and New York State.

As I understand it, in the U.S. a judge is not merely "permitted," but is in fact required, to disclose that, at least if a motion to set aside the conviction "notwithstanding the verdict" has been made. That would not necessarily say exactly what his judgment would have been in all cases, but if he agrees that the conviction was not justified, he must set it aside.

I guess I add should that it's not just a matter of asking "How would you have decided, Judge?" A judge can't just arbitrarily substitute his personal judgment for that of a jury. However, if the evidence for the verdict is clearly insufficient, if the law has been wrongly applied, or other things like that, he must set it aside (in whole or part).

layman-

Yes, quite so. If Mr. A is charged with the murder of Mr. X and Mr. A testifies that he did not murder Mr. X but Mr. B murdered Mr. X. Mr. B testifies that he did not kill Mr. X but Mr. A murdered Mr. X.

I believe the judge instructs the jury in the law and it is the responsibility of the jury to decide the facts.

The jury may convict Mr. A of murder based on its judgement of the relative credibility of the witnesses. However, the judge may think that Mr. B is guilty.