A recent study suggests that on balance, judges are more likely to acquit a person accused of a crime than is a jury. The results are counterintuitive to me, but that may because my intuitions are all off.
Generally, I worry that judges have seen it all before and are therefore more likely to convict. But perhaps seeing it all before makes them better able to spot a weak case by the Government. Juries often seem less than fully committed to the presumption of innocence, after all.
Here's a link describing the study. It's got me wondering. Judge v. Jury