Updated at 1:39 p.m. on Nov. 23.

The attorney for former Jack Abramoff lobbying associate Kevin Ring reports that the jury in Ring's trial was split evenly on two counts, 6-5 with one undecided on another count, and 8-4 in favor of conviction on five counts. Ring's trial ended in a mistrial last month after the jury deadlocked.

Jurors interviewed by Under The Influence and other publications have reported an 8-4 split on seven counts and a 6-5-1 split on the final count. But Andrew Wise, Ring's attorney, said that the jury foreman told the judge and both legal teams during a post-trial conference that the jurors were split evenly on two charges related to Robert Coughlin, a former liaison in the Department of Justice's Office of Legislative Affairs -- one count of illegal gratuities and one count of honest services wire fraud.

Neither Ring's attorneys nor the jurors wrote down the results of jury deliberations at the time, and all reports of how the jury split are based on memory. Federal prosecutors declined to comment on what they were told of the jury deliberations.

Wise praised the jury for being "diligent and hardworking" and said that the relative evenness of the splits "underscores the difficulty of trying to apply a vague statute to a traditional, albeit arguably distasteful, lobbying activity." That "vague statute" is honest services wire fraud, on which Ring was tried for six counts. Attorneys and legal experts often complain that it is not clearly defined and that federal prosecutors use it in public corruption cases for just that reason. The Supreme Court will hear three cases related to the statute in coming months. Ring's retrial is scheduled for June, presumably after the court comes to a decision on the statute.

Marshall Schreier, a juror in Ring's trial, said that he voted for conviction on all counts. Schreier said he's confident that another jury will be able to come to a conclusion in the retrial, and he predicted the eventual verdict will be guilty.

"After the case concluded, I said, 'Wow. If this guy is not guilty, the pope is not Catholic,'" Schreier said. He said that during jury deliberations, the jurors who voted for acquittal wanted to see a direct link between the tickets and meals Ring gave to public officials and the acts those officials then took. But Schreier thought that expectation of evidence was excessive.

"I was quite upset at times because in so many cases, there isn't going to be a smoking gun," he said. "You just have to draw a reasonable conclusion."

Schreier said the jury partook in some "very heated discussions" during the eight days of deliberations. "At times it was not pleasant," he said.

"There will never be any doubt in my mind about this guy's guilt," Schreier said. "I hope he will be retried and found guilty."

CLARIFICATION: The jury foreman's comments about the jurors' votes were made to the judge and both legal teams.