Mine was a he said/he said assault and the quality of the so-called evidence was lacking, to say the least. No medical report, no forensics, but they did waste the time of an incompetent forensics person who told the jury that luminol does not exist, which is untrue (even if it's not quite the slam dunk of CSI). They didn't even prove that it was the alleged victim's blood on the single evidentiary item. The whole thing was a farce, a total waste of everyone's time and taxpayers money because two jakeys had a falling out and one supposedly punched the other. No big fight, no weapons, not even a photograph of a bruise, let alone any serious injuries.

The jury was split and a slight majority said guilty, plus that we not-guilty'ers should have no further say in whatever the further decision was (I forget now, the level of assault maybe?). He probably did do it but on the basis of being an absolute jakey, not because the evidence was beyond reasonable doubt.

I wouldn't say my faith in Scottish justice was rocked, but at 18 and from a "good" working class family from a nice area, I'd never had any contact with the criminal justice system and probably had a bit of an idealistic view of it. Juries are made up of biased muppets, professional people can lie on the stand and get away with it, and the stupidest cases can end up in court with no evidence and still get a conviction.