It's against the law to refuse jury duty when asked to do it. I never wanted to do it and, when requested, as I frequently was, I always replied "fine but please bear in mind, no matter what the evidence, my unshakeable morality is that I am in no position to judge another human being so I shall automatically vote Not Guilty".

I was rejected every time.

These days the law decrees that no evidence or proof is required against those falsely accused of sex offences. Until they change this (which governments must surely decide to do before the living leader of a party is accused) all jurors ought to vow to vote Not Guilty as a matter of principle. But just DON'T announce intentions beforehand or you'll be rejected as I was!

I wouldn't go quite so far. But I would reject all judge's directions, and only make a decision on provable forensic facts. Even then, in light of what has happened in the past, I would have a built-in bias against the prosecution "expert" witnesses.

Allegations from the deep past (more than five years or so) I would follow your thoughts. Automatic presumption of innocence, as it should be.