Its a shame all it takes to thwart justice is one die-hard conservative that thinks BUsh is the second coming and none of his people should be convicted of anyhting, ever.

Or just one idiot that has no brain, like in the jury that I served on, who thought his definition of words was what we should decide by not what websters indicated. Some people just have no reson to be on a jury, they are not our peers.

Yep -- sounds like the jury members are trying to convince a holdout or two that the definition of reasonable doubt is NOT as posed in the question. Either a hung jury or guilty.

I agree I've been on two juries, both of which deliberated way too long, because of one or two holdouts. That question does indeed appear to be the work of a foreperson who is looking to bat down a holdout who think they can't convict Libby if it's remotely possible that he did not remember the nine conversations he had re Valerie Wilson before he talked to Russert. The good news is that in both cases the holdout eventually came around an most issues; maybe they'll acquit Libby on one or two counts to get at least one conviction.

I've been a criminal lawyer for 15 years, nine of them as a prosecutor. I loathe Bush/Cheney and everything they stand for.

I'm increasingly concerned that this jury is a buch of fools. The Valentine's Day t-shirts was an early warning sign. The ridiculously long deliberations are another. Request for a dictionary; alarming.

The jury selection was botched entirely. Mere dislike or distrust of Bush/Cheney should not have been grounds for removal. Any juror who pledged to listen to the evidence impartially and follow the instructions should have been allowed to sit.