The last time I served on jury duty was a year and a half ago. It was a criminal case that was based on circumstantial evidence. Both the judge and the Prosecution said repeatedly "This is a CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE case. There is no DNA, no fingerprints, no blood, etc. etc. Your decision will be made on the credibility of testimony." The judge even explained further, in simple terms, "who is the most believable." There were still a couple of hold-outs on the jury who insisted on hard, factual, tangible evidence!!! They also said the prosecution had not met the "burden of proof" because there was no DNA, even AFTER we had been told in advance there was no DNA. It took us over 12 hours and many questions to the judge to get them to understand how to reach a verdict based on CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.