Sort of. Here's a paper on the relevant passage from the Talmud.

The key things to understand are:

• The passage in the Talmud states that if a unanimous guilty verdict is reached, the suspect can be acquitted, but in reality that just meant the sentence was postponed a day or two to gather more evidence that might favor the defendant.

• The Talmud is more of a legal code based on religion than a strict religious code. This means that it contains a lot of commentaries on the religious law by different Rabbis and Jewish legal scholars, and sometimes these commentaries will contradict one another. So if a unanimous verdict happened in a Jewish religious court today, some Rabbis of the court might press for acquittal based on that passage, while others may disregard that passage and quote other Talmudic sources to uphold the verdict.

Think of it like a Law & Order episode where one attorney objects to a motion based on a verdict in a previous Supreme Court case - to defend the motion the opposing attorney will most likely bring up another court case which reached the opposite verdict with similar facts. The Talmud works in a similar fashion. Some commentaries within its pages might hold more legal weight because of the particular Rabbi that wrote it, but there are often no hard and fast yes/no, right/wrong answers when dealing with Jewish law. Jews have a collection of legal cases and verdicts called the Responsa which goes back around 1,700 years and is still being updated today - so there's obviously a lot of diverse opinions to draw on and argue over.