Bump and Update: Per Firedoglake, no verdict today, the jury has gone home.

*******

Libby: Factors to Consider While We Wait

While predicting what a jury will do -- or even where they are in their deliberations -- is fruitless, there are some things to consider in trying to follow along. The first is that we have access to newspaper articles, blog posts, pleadings, etc. They do not.

They do not have transcripts of the trial testimony or opening or closing arguments. They do not even have a copy of the Indictment.

They have jury instructions. They have paper copies of the exhibits. They have their handwritten notes of the testimony.

So, where would they begin once they have selected a foreman and decided to start discussions? Byron York says how he would do it.

More...

As noted here, the jurors' question concerned the false statement charge against Scooter Libby with respect to Count 3 of the Indictment. The jurors were unsure whether they had to find that Libby lied to the FBI in October, 2003 when he said he told Matt Cooper in July, 2003 that reporters were telling the Administration that Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but he didn't know if that was true.

It's interesting to me that the jury didn't have a question on Count 2 of the Indictment, a similar false statements charge with respect to Tim Russert.

To find Libby guilty on count 2, they must agree that (either or both):

There was much waiting this morning as the Court decided how to respond to yesterday's jury note.

Here is yesterday's note. It was a question about what was required on Count 3 of the Indictment, pertaining to former Time reporter Matthew Cooper. The count alleges Libby made a false statement to the FBI about his conversation with Cooper in the fall of 2003. This is not the perjury count.

Update: Jane of Firedoglake reprints the text version:

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 of this was true.

(i.e., is the charge that the statement was made or about the content of the statement itself)

Judge's note at the bottom — I am not exactly certain what you are asking me. Can you please clarify your question?

After the Judge responded, the jury sent back this note, indicating it now understood what it was supposed to do.

Firedoglake is live-blogging deliberations again. I agree with Marcy that the Cooper counts are the weakest in the Indictment.

Some new details on the Scooter Libby jury deliberation process:

• The jurors wore jeans today. Certainly a sign they knew they weren't going to finish today...otherwise they would have dressed up.

• Ted Wells is buying courtroom sketches of himself from the sketch artists. His advice: "Always buy your sketches before the verdict."

• Libby's wife, lawyer Harriet Grant and Libby attorney Bill Jeffress hit the park across from the courthouse during the wait to grab a smoke.

• Both sides have waiting rooms in the courthouse. The Government's is bigger.

More...

Update: The jury had a note at end of the day. Received by e-mail from DOJ spokesperson Randall Samborn:

The Court received a note containing a question from the jury at the end of the day today. Judge Walton will address the note with the parties in court at approximately 9:30 a.m. Wednesday morning, following the conclusion of another matter the Court has scheduled at 9 a.m. The contents of the note will not be disclosed until the note is addressed in court and docketed sometime tomorrow morning.

Update: 5:05 pm ET and no verdict. Looks like everyone comes back for more waiting tomorrow.

********

The 11 remaining jurors are in day 5 of jury deliberations in the Scooter Libby trial. Jane and Marcy of Firedoglake are at the courthouse, as is Aldon Haynes of Orient Lodge (blogging for MediaBloggers.

Lots of people have asked me what's taking so long. I don't think this is a particularly long time yet.

There were problems this morning with a juror in the Libby case having seen something in the media over the weekend. The juror has been dismissed.

According to Jane at Firedoglake and Aldon Haynes who is live-blogging at Orient Lodge for Media Bloggers, the defense opted to go with 11 jurors while Fitz wanted to put in an alternate and stay with 12.

If they put in an alternate, the jurors would have to begin deliberations anew. The Judge agreed to go with 11 jurors. That's what they are doing.

The dismissed juror is the retired art curator and lone juror who wouldn't wear red on Valentine's Day:

The woman who was dismissed from jury is an art history expert and scholar who formerly served as a curator of prints at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Jason Leopold has reviewed Patrick Fitzgerald's closing argument in the Scooter Libby trial, and points out these comments:

Rebutting the defense's assertion that Cheney was not behind the leak, Fitzgerald told jurors, "You know what? [Wells] said something here that we're trying to put a cloud on the vice president. We'll talk straight. There is a cloud over the vice president. He sent Libby off to [meet with former New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting, the two hour meeting, the defendant talked about the wife [Plame]. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened."

More...

Here are the first two notes sent by the jury in the Scooter Libby trial:

• Note 1

• Note 2

Update: Jury's done for the day.

Marcy (Empty Wheel)was in the media room and courtroom today live-blogging at Firedoglake and watching the jury and lawyers.

I just received this email from DOJ spokesman Randall Samborn:

Mr. Fitzgerald will not be available after a verdict for one-on-one interviews or talk shows. We do anticipate that he will speak to the media after a verdict outside the Courthouse.

My main question which I hope a reporter asks: Is this investigation over? I sure hope the answer is "no."

Due to the length of Scooter's grand jury testimony and the voluminous exhibits introduced, I would not be surprised if this jury doesn't come back before Friday. I'm not going to make a prediction for conviction or acquittal. But, I do think a very fast verdict means acquittal and a very prolonged one means a split (compromise) verdict or a hung jury.

I'm so conflicted.

I believe that the Office of the Vice President, particularly Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby, went all out to attack Joseph Wilson after his July 6th New York Times Op-ed criticizing the intelligence relied on by the Administration to justify its decision to go to war in Iraq.

I believe the evidence at Scooter Libby's trial established that Cheney was livid over Wilson and that he used the C.I.A., the State Department and the Department of Defense to search for dirt on him. Through his inquiries, Cheney learned that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, worked for the CIA in the counter-proliferation division on weapons of mass destruction. He received information that she might have had a role in sending Wilson to Niger to check on intelligence claims that Iraq was acquiring uranium for use in WMD's.

More...

I'm live blogging the Scooter Libby closings at Huffington Post.

• Government
• Defense

Also check out Marcy at Firedoglake.

Former prosecutor Victoria Toensing has an op-ed in the Washington Post today (debunked nicely by Larry Johnson) outlining her case for Scooter Libby's acquittal. In two words: jury nullification.

(Thanks, Victoria, for attempting to personally smear the prosecutor on the eve of closing arguments. I bet if a true criminal defense lawyer wrote an article like that you'd accuse him or her of trying to influence the jury pool.)

Toensing is playing to the court of public opinion here, not the court of law. By setting forth her grounds for indicting others in the case, she's advocating exactly what Patrick Fitzgerald has said he's on guard against: the defense playing the jury nullification card, arguing that it's not fair Libby was charged while others weren't.

I don't think Team Libby is going to make that argument, at least not directly. They know Patrick Fitzgerald would repeatedly interrupt Wells' closing to object and there's few things worse than losing your rhythm and the jury's undivided attention in closing because of objections from the other side.

More...