Then you would be either not chosen, if you were honest about your inability to follow the law and the jury instructions, or kicked off the jury if you eventually admitted such an inability.
Because the law states that neither form of evidence is inherently more reliable than the other:
"A fact may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence. Under the law, both are acceptable ways to prove something. Neither is necessarily more reliable than the other."
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Committees/Criminal_Jury_Instructions/2017/COLJI-Crim 2017 - Final.pdf
Essentially what you're saying is you could not convict someone without a video of the murder or an eye witness. Because that's pretty much it for direct evidence.
EVERYTHING else is circumstantial - DNA, fingerprints, etc.
Jurors who are unwilling to follow the law I think are responsible for some very terrible outcomes in various cases, in this country.