That some of the jurors in the Libby case didn't know what they were convicting him of wasn't a recent or isolated phenomenon. In the mid-1970s, I served on a jury in Fresno where a man was accused of "second-degree burglary."
While there was no doubt about his guilt, there was some doubt about the nature of that particular charge. So, we asked the judge what second-degree burglary was. We were told that we didn't have to know since it wasn't presented in the trial! Is this Catch-22 or what?