On Tuesday, November 29, Conrad Murray was given a sentence of four years in the Los Angeles County jail for involuntary manslaughter of legendary pop star Michael Jackson. CNN reported that the jury members convicted him due to certain evidence that they considered important to the case. They considered that Murray hadn't called the police, didn't have the proper equipment with him, and left the room after he had treated Jackson.

In a case there are two types of evidence that can be presented to the jury: Circumstantial (indirect) or direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence is generally evidence that is needed to connect to a fact; an example would be a shoe print at a crime scene. Circumstantial evidence can be many different facts that are deduced and can be used to draw inferences while direct evidence is evidence that does not need any further connection or evidence; it is essentially self-supportive. The judiciary state defines an inference as deducing facts that common sense and logic produces through a collective group or one fact given by evidence.

It is not commonly known is that a conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence. Another example of circumstantial evidence could be someone saying that they saw a hand mark on someone's face while an example of direct evidence would be seeing the person being struck. It has also been reported that there is no distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence in trial and that both can be used to bring a verdict of guilty or innocent. Adjectives that can be used to describe direct evidence are the words real, clear, or tangible. In criminal law direct evidence is an assertion of guilt or of innocence and includes:

• Physical evidence; and
• Evidence that has been recorded, such as surveillance media

Circumstantial evidence does not convict a person on its own, yet it can imply guilt. This type of evidence may also prove that a fact does not exist in a case. Government sites say that for a jury there are two rules that must be abided by when presented with circumstantial evidence:

• They may only be allowed to draw conclusions from certain facts that they believe are verifiable.
• The second rule is that any assumptions gathered through this evidence must be by the juror's common sense or own affirmative experiences.

Also, if the case is made solely through circumstantial evidence, the juror must decide if the evidence is certain enough for the person's conscience and belief that the defendant is guilty. It also must be certain that there is no other alternative to the facts of the case. This is also the case if the person is found innocent.

The jury is the deciding factor about what they deem is without a reasonable doubt. With direct evidence, the jury can be sure to what degree the crime was committed. For circumstantial evidence, there must be a lot of evidence to prove a case; many pieces of evidence are needed. Although, according to one source, testimony can be considered either circumstantial or direct evidence. Though direct evidence seems as if it would be one of the only pieces of evidences needed to convict someone, the witness who testified has a bearing on the case. If the person who is on the witness stand gives direct evidence and they are not a credible source, the jury might not take that person's word very seriously, though still being considered in the implications of the case. If a more credible witness testifies the same direct evidence as the less credible witness, the jury is likely to decide that the evidence is more serious and trustworthy. Therefore both direct and indirect evidence are important to a case and should be considered with the utmost respect when a juror.