Yesterday's note from the Libby jurors was revealed this morning, and is being discussed right now on firedoglake:
We would like clarification on the charge as stated under Count 3 specifically:
Page 74 of the jury instructions, "Count three of the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI on October 14 or November 26, 2003, that during a conversation with M. Cooper of Time Magazine on July 12, 2003, Mr. Libby told Mr. Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but that Mr. Libby did not know if this was true." (i.e., is the charge that the statement was made or about the content of the statement itself)
(pdf)
To which Judge Walton responded:
I am not exactly certain what you are asking me. Can you please clarify your question?
And the jury replied:
After further discussion, we are clear on what we need to do. No further clarification needed. Thank you. We apologize.
(pdf)
Why does this bode well? Because this is the Matt Cooper charge, the most "he said, he said" of the five charges, the one on which Fitzgerald's evidence was the weakest (according to emptywheel). Jeffress, for the defense, made real inroads against Cooper's credibility.
To my mind, the jury's note at first showed a needless semantic confusion (and I'm glad they worked it out). But it may indicate that the Zeidenberg argument — that this was about much more than a few words, but a whole context of presenting a false picture to the FBI — was effective. That the jury is deliberating on this count means that it has probably already dispatched, over the course of 4 1/2 days, the charges relating to Russert. The thinking is that after four days, if they had found "not guilty" on those "easier" charges, they wouldn't be considering the Cooper charge seriously at all.
Of course my interpretation could be all wrong. But I think the jury note is a good sign.