Updated at 9:42 a.m. on Oct. 13.

Armed with a verdict form, 68 pages of jury instructions, notes taken during the trial and several binders full of evidence, the jury in the trial of former Jack Abramoff associate Kevin Ring spent the better part of last week deliberating on eight separate criminal counts.

How the trial will turn out, no one can know, but it is possible Ring will be found guilty on some counts but not others. In Judge Ellen Huvelle's instructions, the jury is specifically warned not to let the verdict on one count impact another.

"The fact that you may find the defendant guilty or not guilty on any one count of the indictment should not control or influence your verdict with respect to the other counts of the indictment," she said.

Split verdicts are sometimes the result of "jury compromise," said Daniel Richman, a professor at Columbia University with expertise in federal criminal law.

"Jurors from time to time believe that one way out of difficult deliberations is by rendering a unanimous split verdict," Richman said. But a jury finding a defendant guilty on some counts and not guilty on other counts is not the most common circumstance, because "by and large juries understand cases in broad brush strokes," he added.

Here is a guide to the charges that the jury is deliberating on:

Conspiracy: Count I is conspiracy to commit illegal gratuities and honest services wire fraud. To find Ring guilty, the jury must find that (1) an agreement existed between two or more people to commit at least one of those crimes, (2) Ring was intentionally a part of the agreement to partake in unlawful activities, and (3) at least one person involved in the conspiracy took at least one "overt act" -- of about 150 listed in the indictment -- with the goal of completing the conspiracy. The agreement does not need to be "formal," the jury instructions say, but the co-conspirators must have come to a "common understanding."

Conspiracy To Provide Illegal Gratuities: If the jury finds Ring guilty of a conspiracy, they must also determine whether or not he is guilty of conspiring to provide illegal gratuities, commit honest services wire fraud or both. To find he conspired to provide illegal gratuities, the jury must find that (1) Ring gave, offered or promised to a public official at least one of the many things of value -- such as tickets and meals -- listed in the indictment; (2) the thing of value was not part of the public official's salary or compensation; and (3) Ring gave, offered or promised the thing of value "for or because of a specific official act performed or to be performed by the public official."

The "for or because of a specific official act" standard means that the government had to prove Ring gave the gifts for more than just general access. "It is not illegal to give a thing of value to a public official merely to build a reservoir of goodwill that might ultimately affect one or more unspecified actions, now or in the future," the jury instructions read. "The fact that gifts or hospitality might make a public official willing to take lobbyist's telephone call or might provide the lobbyist greater access to the official's appointment schedule is not enough, by itself, to demonstrate the lobbyist's intent to provide illegal gratuities or to deprive the public of the government official's honest services."

Conspiracy To Commit Honest Services Wire Fraud: To conclude that Ring conspired to commit honest services wire fraud, the jury must find that (1) a scheme or artifice existed, (2) Ring was "knowingly and willfully" a part of that scheme with "the specific intent to defraud," (3) the co-conspirators used misrepresentation or concealment during the scheme, and (4) Ring sent communications via interstate wire -- in this case, mostly e-mails -- in order to carry out the scheme.

Illegal Gratuity: Count II is providing illegal gratuities to a public official, specifically in reference to eight Washington Wizards tickets given to Robert Coughlin, a former liaison in the Department of Justice's Office of Legislative Affairs. The government alleges Ring provided the tickets to reward Coughlin for help in getting an expedited approval by the Immigration and Naturalization Service for admission of students into the country to attend a school that was founded by Abramoff. To find Ring provided this illegal gratuity, the jury must determine that (1) Ring gave, offered or promised basketball tickets (though not necessarily eight tickets) to Coughlin and (2) Ring supplied the tickets "for or because of a specific official act" by Coughlin.

Honest Services Wire Fraud: Counts III - VIII concern specific e-mails and one check, which the government alleges are interstate wire communications. For each count, the jury must find that the contents of the communications represent (1) a scheme or artifice to deprive "the United States and its citizens of the intangible right of the honest services" of its public officials (in this case Coughlin, former congressional staffer John Albaugh and former Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif.); (2) Ring "knowingly and willfully" was a part of the scheme with "specific intent to defraud;" (3) the scheme involved "material misrepresentation, false statement, fraudulent pretense, or concealment of fact;" and (4) Ring sent the specific e-mail or check via interstate wire in order to fulfill the scheme. An FBI agent said during the prosecution's presentation of evidence that e-mails sent and received by Ring traveled through an e-mail server in Florida or Georgia, even if the sender and receiver of the e-mails were both physically in Washington, D.C. The FBI agent also said that the check was deposited through a wire transfer from Florida to Washington, D.C.