Update: From Marcy's live-blog:

Walton: I don't want to keep thejury waiting until tomorrow. The only other issue. I'll let you all work on that to see if you can come up with something. But I do have an issue as I was trying to come up with some language, and I know that counsel had not requested unanimity instruction regarding this count. I think it may be a problem. I had "and' between the two dates. Govt requested that it be changed to "or". Jury doesn't have to find that he falsely made the statement on both dates. But is there a unanimity issue WRT this count, in light of statements made on two different dates. I don't think the defense suggested he said soemthing different on one day and the other. We've got to know taht the jury is saying he made a false statement on one and the same date that's alleged in the indictment. I don't know if there's a unaninimity issue or not. THe issue can't be waived. We have to know that jury reaching unanimous verdict on one of the two dates or both.

Wells: I'd ask you give us time to reflect on it [really quiet]. We need to discuss among ourselves and with the client. It's just too important.

Walton: there's going to be a claim of plain error if we don't know that there's a false statement made on a particular date.

Update: They are releasing the jury for the day, but arguments on the jury questions will continue.

I'm having a hard time understanding without seeing the actual questions, but from Marcy's description, it sounds like the jury wants to know if it can consider the false statement perjury charge statements in deciding whether Libby lied to the grand jury FBI. Fitz argues yes, and the judge seems to agree, because the Government's theory has been that once Libby lied to the FBI, he was locked into a version of events that he continued when he lied to the grand jury. Wells thinks the false statement was complete in October when he talked to the FBI and it's improper to allow the jury to consider those (perjury)statements deciding whether he lied to the grand jury FBI.

The Government explained its theory here.

There also seems to be an issue as to the statements in Count 5 and the jury needing to know it only must find he lied on one of the the two dates in March and unanimously agree on which date.

Update: This may be backwards. It now appears from Jane at Firedoglake and Matt Appuzo of the AP, both of whom were in court, that at least one of the jury's latest three questions pertain to Count 3, the false statements charge against Libby, as it pertains to Matt Cooper. From Matt:

Jurors asked whether they could use Libby's grand jury testimony, which was played in court, as evidence that Libby lied during an earlier FBI interview. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said the answer should be ``yes,'' but Libby's lawyers say one thing is not evidence of the other.

Walton sent jurors home and said he would answer the questions Tuesday.

I'm curious to see how others report this.

Update: Later AP story is here.

Update: Is the jury almost done? I think so. I speculated here that the order they would consider the counts was: 1-4-5-1-2-3.

The first is on Count 1 of the Indictment, Obstruction of Justice. But, in order to resolve that count, they must first decide whether any of three specific statements (pdf) Libby made to the grand jury in March, 2004 about his conversations with Tim Russert and Matthew Cooper in July, 2003 were falsely made with the intent of deceiving the grand jury.

The obstruction count does not pertain to Libby's allegely false statements to investigators in the fall of 2003. The statements are taken from testimony contained in Counts 4 and 5, the perjury counts.

Admittedly I'm a lawyer and not a juror, but I would think the jury would first decide counts 4 and 5, and then go back to count 1, since in order to decide count 1, the obstruction charge, they first need to resolve whether he testified falsely to the grand jury about Russert and Cooper. After they finished with those, I would think they would move on to Counts 2 and 3, the false statements charges. Taking them in order (count 2 being Russert and Count 3 being Cooper), I would think they would have resolved Russert before Cooper.

If they are on Count 3, I think 1, 4, 5 and 2 have already been resolved. Since most trial followers believe the Matt Cooper counts were the weakest, this may not bode well for Libby.