Originally Posted by
_Agrajag_
I wonder why some inquests are held with a jury and most are not? The only one I've ever been to had a jury, although I wasn't convinced that their input was that useful. They were directed by the coroner as to the most likely verdict, so clearly that I rather think most of them took it as an instruction. They were only out for a very short time before coming back and delivering the verdict the coroner had pretty much told them to return (accidental death).
The coroner can direct the jury that certain verdicts are not appropriate in law, for the case before them, so cannot be used. Sometimes that can mean that only one verdict can reasonably be reached in which case it is not far short of a direction. However, if more than one verdict could reasonably be reached for a particular case, then jury should certainly not be steered as to which of those to return.
It is different from a criminal case where the judge can decide that the evidence on a particular charge is so weak that no reasonable jury could consider convicting. In that case he or she can direct the jury to acquit. What the judge can never do is direct the jury to convict!