I just completed my civic duty for the year, serving as a juror on a 6-week murder trial.  It was a tough case.  There was no direct evidence linking the defendant to the crime scene, other than testimony that this man was in the area of the shooting.  I'm ok with there not being any direct evidence, because the law says we can convict on merely circumstantial evidence.  Afterall, Scott Peterson was convicted on mere circumstantial evidence.  So that was not my problem.  The problem was, all the circumstantial evidence we did have was toxic, shaky, at best.  Every single witness (except for a couple, plus the detectives) had a criminal history and flat out lied on the witness stand.  We heard tape recordings of their own voices directly contradicting their testimony in court.  There were holes in the evidence and in the investigation that left enough room for reasonable doubt.  By law, as jurors, we must find the defendant not guilty if we feel the case has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  The real anguish comes because I do believe, in my gut, that the defendant killed this man.  Every one of us 12 jurors believed that.  But when we looked at the evidence and tried to piece together the puzzle to make the case beyond a reasonable doubt, we just could not do it.  I cried in the jury room when I came to that realization.  I cried in court when the verdict was read.  But for all of that, I do still stand by our decision.... it was the right conclusion based on the evidence we were given.  The DA did an excellent job of presenting the case with the information she had, but it just wasn't enough... there were too many holes and not enough credible witnesses.