The article draws the attention to the relevance of research of the miscarriages of justice made when considering the case by court with participation of jurors despite a long-term dispute about the value of the jury, its positive and negative sides. The authors illustrate the positions of scientists engaged in the process study concerning the concept and types of miscarriages of justice. The basis for the division of the miscarriages of justice made by the jury when considering the issue on the defendant’s guilt is the classification developed by the group of scientists under the leadership of V.N. Kudryavtsev. Considering specifics of Russian jury trial and its division into “judges of law” and “judges of the fact”, the authors come up with the conclusion on the possibility of the board of jury to make mistake only in the “the area of knowledge of the actual circumstances of the crime” in the form of condemnation of the innocent and justification of the innocent. At the same time the jurors do not participate in “a criminal and legal meditation”, i. e. in the qualification of the act incriminated to the defendant as this question refers to the powers of the presiding judge. The concept “validity of a verdict” of the board of jury is defined as the accordance of the damning verdict of the jury with the position of the chairperson that the crime event took place, in the act of the defendant there are signs of a crime and (or) corpus delicti, participation of the defendant in the crime is proved. Conclusions are drawn that jurors can make a mistake in the form of condemnation of the innocent making an unreasonable verdict, however such mistake must be revealed not by a higher judicial instance, but by the presiding judge who has to eliminate it by giving an acquittal or by dissolution of jury as it is stated in parts 4, 5 of Article 348 Of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.