Not true at all, if you have not sat on a jury you would not be aware that the full details of the case are rarely made public even in open cases. In many cases making a claim is not even enough to lay charges, just today it came to light that a pedestrian who was filmed on camera assaulting a cyclist, breaking his ankle, will not have charges laid against him.
I have sat on a jury in which I personally thought the defendant was guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm on his neighbour in front of his children. All the evidence presented certainly added up to a strong likelihood that the defendant was guilty, but not beyond reasonable doubt and so like the rest of the jury, I had no choice but to vote "not guilty". A couple of the others in the room also said they thought he did it but could not be sure enough to send a person they have never met to prison with a lifelong criminal record. So he left the courtroom a free man, whether or not he actually committed the crime.
That's just how our justice system is set up. We would rather let 9 guilty men walk free than send 1 innocent to prison. Of course there have been some horrifying miscarriages of justice in history, but I would hazard that more people will be found not guilty of crimes they actually committed today alone.
All this to say, the courts are not a joke and it is no trivial exercise to get a jury of 12 to find you guilty of a crime.
