One of the jury members in the Casey Anthony case stated on T.V., after the verdict was announced, "Don't you need to know how, what, when, where and why, when convicting someone of murder?" Another one of the jurors recently came forward saying "Several of us thought she was guilty, but the State failed to positively identify "cause of death".  Clearly based on the previously mentioned statements, neither one of those jurors (along with other jury members I'm sure) believed that they had enough "concrete evidence" to convict. Clearly, they were never made properly aware of what the term "circumstantial evidence" is, and means. People on a jury need to be made aware by an unbiased court member, PRIOR to having the responsibility of serving, as to what the various grounds for a conviction are.  Clearly based on the jurors recent statements in the Casey Anthony case, they had little understanding of how the law works!  Had they been better informed, there would have been a different verdict, based on their statements. I believe there should be a mandated one day class educating jurors on the various avenues of convicting, prior to the start of jury duty when serving on a criminal case. Obviously a judge giving them an instructional manual does not equipt them with the task at hand.