Are courts always right in pronouncing judgments on supposed perpetrators?

Courts are the singular institution that has the power and authority vested on them by society to pass judgment on supposed perpetrators for being guilty or not. Most of the time, a court’s decision of acquitting or convicting an accused person cast an idea of whether the right outcome has actually been reached based on the evidence provided the jury. Also, one turn to ask if the decision of the jury is not based on their own belief system than the evidence provided, or if the evidence provided is enough for such decision to be arrived at. With few actual verdicts, scholarly reviews, and articles, I intend to explore why some court verdicts may not be necessarily right and why some verdicts could also be influenced by the jury and not evidence provided. In retrospect, a court’s decision on any case will not in fact be right or wrong due to the reason that there are more than one ethical principle that moral agent is presented with and the different ethical principles may not provide the same outcome. So depending on the ethical principle lenses that you view a court’s case with, the outcome of the case could be right or wrong.