ANALYSIS: Timing the Libby Verdict

ByABC News
February 27, 2007, 4:27 PM

Feb. 27, 2007 — -- The jury in the Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial could come back with a verdict as early as today, but no one knows for certain. Anyone who says they know what the jury is going to do is probably just making it up as they go along. The jury has been out since last Wednesday, and it has asked the judge for a flip chart, post-it notes, tape and pictures of the witnesses -- no doubt trying to reconstruct testimony on 11 conversations Libby had with 9 different people. The time they're taking with deliberations reveals the true complexities of this case.

Libby is charged with lying to investigators who were trying to figure out who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA agent and wife of a Bush administration critic.

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Levy has prosecuted white collar criminals in Washington. "I don't think anybody knows what this jury's gonna do," said Levy. "Any time you start deliberating in a case, the deliberations wind up taking twists and turns that no jurors necessarily anticipate."

Levy points out the prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence, noting that the jurors have to wade through testimony about conversations Libby had with journalists.

And then there's the question of motive. The prosecution painted a picture of Libby as a liar, consumed with a mission to discredit Plame's husband, Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. After displaying a flow chart and detailing conversations Libby had with journalists, Deputy Special Counsel Peter Zeidenberg told the jury, "Consider how amazingly sharp and clear that is He can remember a conversation with Karl Rove but he can't remember one out of nine other conversations he had because it was a trivial matter." The prosecution told the jury that just couldn't be true a man so obsessed with this matter wouldn't forget these key conversations.

"Prosecutors, often during closing arguments, will appeal to jurors' common sense: It just doesn't make sense that he could've done A, and nonetheless done B," said Levy. "I used to refer to it as a prosecutor as the 'oh, come on' argument the question is gonna be whether the 'oh come on' argument is going to be enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."