Legal experts cautioned against reading too much into what the jury might be thinking at this stage of the trial because Libby's lawyers have yet to present their case. And for the prosecution, proving that a senior government official intentionally lied is no easy matter.
Some of the government's witnesses have indicated memory problems of their own, potentially bolstering Libby's faulty memory defense.
Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller acknowledged under cross-examination last week that when she first appeared before the grand jury she did not remember the first time Libby gave her information about Plame. She said her memory was refreshed after she found a notebook in her office.
The closest thing to a smoking gun in the case so far are notes handwritten by Libby during a phone conversation with Cheney on June 12, 2003. Cheney told Libby, according to the notes, that Wilson's wife was a counter-proliferation specialist at the CIA.
Libby has acknowledged taking the notes, but has said he had forgotten that Cheney had passed him the tip by the time he started talking with reporters about Wilson a few weeks later. He has told investigators that he believed he first learned about Plame from the reporters; prosecutors say Libby lied out of concern that he could be charged with leaking classified information.
Trial testimony has indicated that other officials also discussed Plame's secret resume with Libby around the time he was speaking with Cheney. They include a high-ranking State Department official, a top spymaster from the CIA, and Libby's morning intelligence briefer.
With those witnesses having no apparent motive to lie, legal experts say, their testimony threatens to undercut Libby's memory defense as his lawyers prepare to put on their case starting Wednesday. They say the cumulative effect of witnesses saying they were engaged with Libby on the subject earlier than when he has said he first learned about Plame could be a challenge for the defense.
"Either these witnesses are wrong in their recollections or Libby will need to convince [the jury] that he simply forgot these multiple conversations," said Daniel French, a former federal prosecutor who represents a potential witness in the trial. "I think that could be problematic" for Libby.
Jeffrey Frederick, a jury consultant from Charlottesville, Va., said: "What the government had to do was show that this was not a one-conversation gig. I think they are doing a very good job of nailing that down."
