Reasonable doubt vexes the Libby jury

Here's an interesting coincidence: I have a Norman Rockwell wall calendar over my desk and the new picture for March is called "The Jury Holdout."


And now there's this from the NY Times:

The jurors sent a note with a question to Judge Reggie B. Walton, who is expected to respond on Monday when deliberations resume. In the note, the jurors asked for further explanation of the concept of reasonable doubt, suggesting possible uncertainty or even disagreement over the core standard by which they are to measure the evidence and testimony about Mr. Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

“We would like clarification of the term ‘reasonable doubt,’ ” the note said. “Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?”

The question suggested that at least some of the jurors are wrestling with the imprecise and often vexing definition of reasonable doubt, as well as how to decide whether a false statement should be attributed to faulty memory or willful deception, the issue at the center of the case.

The InTrade contract for a Libby conviction has dropped to a coin flip on the news. There's been talk of a hung jury but, from what I've read about the panel, they seem to be working earnestly towards a decision one way or the other. I'm guessing there will be a decision next week.