Jury Told to Try Again on George Verdict : Trial: Deliberations to enter fifth day after impasse on Iran-Contra charges against ex-CIA official. Judge says deadlock is not hopeless.

WASHINGTON — A jury weighing the Iran-Contra perjury case against former CIA official Clair E. George told a federal judge Monday that after four days of deliberations it was unable to reach a verdict on any count.

But U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth determined that the panel was not yet “hopelessly deadlocked” and, after answering some technical questions for jurors, sent them back to work. They continued their closed-door discussions and later told Lamberth that they will resume deliberations this morning.

George, once the CIA’s No. 3 official, has been charged with nine counts of perjury, obstruction and making false statements to congressional and grand jury panels investigating the Iran-Contra scandal over a five-year period. Each of the charges carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

The Iran-Contra scandal involved a secret deal by the Ronald Reagan Administration to sell arms to Iran in 1985-86 in exchange for the release of U.S. hostages in Lebanon, and then to divert the profits illegally to anti-Sandinista rebels in Nicaragua.

It is not unusual for juries in cases of multiple charges to reach a point where they become discouraged and believe they cannot achieve unanimous agreement, according to legal experts. Some lawyers, however, speculated that it was somewhat early for this jury to reach that point and said that it may be a single juror who is threatening to deadlock the panel.

They recalled that last April a federal jury in Miami reported it was deadlocked on 10 racketeering, conspiracy and drug-smuggling charges against former Panamanian dictator Manuel A. Noriega. However, after a federal judge sternly ordered them to redouble their efforts, jurors convicted Noriega the following day on eight of the 10 counts. It developed that one juror had been holding out for acquittal.

Richard A. Hibey, George’s defense attorney, said that he was neither encouraged nor discouraged by the apparent impasse.

“I’m just numb,” he told a reporter. “I don’t have a clue about what is going on.”

First word of the jurors’ difficulties came shortly after their lunch break, when they sent a note to Lamberth that said they were “unable to reach a unanimous verdict on any count.” They also posed some questions about the meaning of “reasonable doubt” and other legal points in the judge’s instructions to them last week.

Lamberth summoned them into his courtroom to reiterate that prosecutors must convince them of George’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt . . . but not beyond all doubt.” The judge said that reasonable doubt is doubt “that you can assign a reason to, that would cause you to hesitate in the course of your daily affairs.”

He also said that George was required to answer all questions from Congress truthfully but was not required to volunteer unsolicited information. The judge said that any deception had to be deliberate and not a simple mistake for the jury to vote a conviction.

Later, after jurors repeated their inability to reach a verdict in a second note, Lamberth lectured them on their civic duty.

“It is your duty as jurors to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement, if you can do so without violence to individual judgment,” he said.

Each juror, he said, must follow his or her own conscience but should “not hesitate to re-examine your own views and change your opinion if convinced it is erroneous.”

Lamberth told reporters that he is prepared to give the jury a stronger push toward resolution of the case if its members report further difficulties today.