>>33395609>Do judges decide consequences?It's up to the judge to decide the sentence, yes.
The basic procedure is: evidence is presented to the jury by both sides. The judge sums up the evidence to the jury and says, in effect "if you think X happened, or you're not sure, your verdict should be 'not guilty'; if you think Y happened and you're sure, your verdict should be guilty". The jury then go away and decide what they think happened and how sure they are, and come back with either "guilty" or "not guilty". If the verdict is not guilty, the accused person is free to go. If the verdict is guilty then it is up to the judge to decide what the punishment should be. (There are extensive sentencing guidelines published by the government, but it's up to the judge to interpret them).
Often there are multiple charges, and the jury makes a separate decision about each of them. So, for example, someone might be charged with murder, and also with being an accessory to murder; the jury might find him not guilty of murder but guilty of being an accessory. In the specific case of murder, the jury usually has the option to find someone guilty of manslaughter rather than murder, or (in the US) to decide if it was first or second degree, etc. Again, all they actually have to decide is what they think happened: the judge will have told them "if you think A happened then the verdict should be murder, if you think B happened then the verdict should be manslaughter".
Having said all of that, many trials these days don't even a have a jury; sometimes it's up to the defendant and his legal team whether they ask for a jury trial or not; often (especially in less serious or extremely complicated cases) a jury isn't an option.
And of course frequently there isn't a trial at all, because (especially in the US) most defendants plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. It's still then up to the judge to pass sentence, but he/she will pay attention to the terms of the plea deal.