So it sounds like the jurors think Libby is guilty but have a tiny amount of doubt

Anyone want to weigh in with their thoughts on the juror's question for the judge and what it might mean for the outcome?

is the reasonable doubt standard and they need to educate him/her in order to get a unanimous guilty verdict on one or more of the counts. I can't see how the question makes sense from any other perspective.

It isn't a legal term and isn't part of the instructions. How about does hell have to freeze over to convict?

as used by the legal system

the question pertained specifically to "gee I forgot" in absolute terms

while it's reasonable for a person to forget something, in Libby's case how reasonable would it be for him to forget the meeting with Cheney and Cheney telling him Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and to spin/leak it - especially when the bulk of the meeting centered around Wilson and the article?

the jury wants to know if reasonable doubt regarding memory means that the prosecution had to prove 100% absolutely positively that Libby did not forget and lied about it -- or if reasonable doubt means there's only a possibility that Libby really did forget.

so if you could set reasonable doubt on a scale - do you acquit if the proof is not 100%, 90% or at what level?

This can have extremely long-range effects on the legal system. If the standard for reasonable doubt means it's valid for anything less than 100% of the time - then anyone could take the stand in their own defense and say "Gee, I forgot I was driving the car when I hit the little old lady which is why I drove away"

more likely the jury has 1 or 2 holdouts who are saying that forgetting is a something we all do and therefore there's reasonable doubt.