The judge in a criminal trial would be bound to accept a jury's verdict, however perverse. Unpopular laws have at times been altered due to persistent refusal by juries to convict even against overwhelming evidence of guilt: in e.g. cases where under the laws of the time a child might have been transported, or even hanged, for a small theft — it was, at least in part, campaigns of non-conviction by juries which led to such draconian penalties being abolished.

The coroner [not 'judge'] in an inquest, is not so required. That is the point of my query.