Can a judge in the common law system overturn a jury's decision?

The theoretical basis of establishing the jury system is the basic principle that "any power needs to be restricted, and unrestricted power will inevitably lead to corruption". Jury is not only a litigation trial system, but also an important authority in the American system of separation of powers and checks and balances. At that time, in order to put an end to autocratic corruption, American constitutional sages made great efforts in system design. According to the principle of separation of powers and checks and balances, state power is divided into three parts, that is, executive power, legislative power and judicial power are exercised by three institutions, and at the same time they check and balance each other. On the basis of the separation of the three powers, the judicial power is further divided into two parts: the right to find out the facts and the right to apply the law. The jury exercises the right to find out the facts and the judge exercises the right to apply the law. The factual findings made by the jury should not be easily overturned by the judge; The functions and powers of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court are only to conduct legal review of appeal cases, not to hear the facts, and their functions are only to supervise whether the lower courts correctly interpret and apply the law. In the litigation trial of grass-roots courts, judges are only "jury" judges, moderators and sentencing officers. In this regard, it seems that the translation of English Jury into "jury" has lost its accurate meaning. In fact, the jury is a "people's procuratorate" and a "people's court" that share judicial power with prosecutors and judges, rather than a foil or decoration for "accompanying judges to appear in court".