NEW ORLEANS - In an intense two hours, the three appellate judges who will decide former Gov. Edwin W. Edwards' fate clearly were concerned more about two major issues: the removal of Juror 68 and whether a wiretap was properly placed on Stephen Edwards' phones.

In a legal wrestling match Monday, attorneys argued over whether there were serious errors made by U.S. Judge Frank Polozola, in whose Baton Rouge courtroom the Edwardses and three others were convicted May 9, 2000 of gambling racketeering and corruption charges.

The three-judge panel, defense and prosecution attorneys spent more time on whether Juror 68 was improperly removed by Polozola, indicating that is the most critical issue in the judges' deliberations over whether to overturn the convictions and order a new trial or let the verdict stand.

While the judges closely questioned both sides from seemingly different points of view, that's not important, said U.S. Judge Patrick Higginbotham. He's the chief judge of the three-judge panel that could reach a decision within 60 days or six months.

"Questions from the bench do not indicate what the judges are thinking," Higginbotham told the courtroom. "They may be thinking nothing."

The laughter that followed relieved the tension in the quiet historic courtroom with its 35-foot ceiling.

The judges are not determining issues of guilt or innocence, just whether Polozola made errors so grave as to deny the defendants their various constitutional rights, such as the right to a fair and impartial trial.

The defense lawyers, headed by celebrity appeals lawyer Alan Dershowitz and his brother, Nat, divided their allotted hour on several issues, saving Alan Dershowitz and the Juror 68 issue for last. The government's appeals lawyer, Steve Higginson, was the sole attorney arguing the government's position.

"This judge was hellbent on removing this juror," Dershowitz argued. "He took issues from the past he had already ruled were OK" to strike him nine days into deliberations, Dershowitz said.

Higginson countered that the idea that Polozola was "hellbent" to get rid of Juror 68 is "flatly contradicted in this record." Higginson said the transcript will show Polozola proceeded "very carefully."

Higginson, in answering a judge's question, said the jury reached the guilty verdicts after four days of deliberations following 68's removal, that 68 had lied under oath to Polozola during the trial judge's investigation of what happened in the jury room.

"There weren't four days of deliberations. There were two days when the jury was off for the weekend," Dershowitz said in a rapid-fire staccato. "They reached a verdict on the second day." Dershowitz also pointed out that Juror 68 was never under oath.

"Please read the record," Dershowitz said. "You will see ... the record has been misrepresented to you."

Dershowitz ended on the point that the other 11 jurors were tainted by Juror 68's removal. "The message was clear that there is something wrong with Juror's 68 views ... that he's a holdout, something's wrong with his view."

Higginson pointed out that Juror 68 had improperly taken a dictionary into the courtroom and jurors used a layman's definitions of legal terms that have far more complex meetings. Higginson's major point was that one day Juror 68 said he had never taken anything out of the jury room, but on the second day remembered that he had torn sheets out of his deliberation notebook and had brought in a question on a piece of paper.

"You can't have a minor lie to a judge," Higginson said. He argued that taking a dictionary into the jury room after the judge had instructed jurors not to bring or take anything in or out of the deliberation room. The dictionary "was a serious violation," Higginson said.

While Judge Higginbotham said no one should infer anything from the judges' questions, his own questions went to the heart of the issue: Did Polozola investigate Juror 68 after a note from him indicated he was a holdout juror for the defense?

"Is it a plausible possibility this person is a holdout? That is the threshold," Higginbotham told the prosecution lawyer.

"There is no immunity (for lying) for a holdout, if he was untruthful and not following instructions," Higginson answered, before switching his argument to another point.

The judges were also concerned about whether the judge properly ordered the use of an anonymous jury, which is a last-resort method for protecting juries usually used in mafia trials. The bottom-line question in the judges' minds seemed to be why Polozola did not use other, less-drastic methods such as giving the defense the names of the jurors but protecting them from public attention in the media.

Another concern seemed to be whether the FBI had authorization to bug Stephen Edwards' law office, when the court order said the authorization was to bug the law office of Edwin Edwards.

The defense pointed out that the authorization used the singular noun "office," but later in one of the final applications for wiretap authority, asked for permission to bug the "law offices" of Edwin Edwards and Stephen Edwards, using the plural noun.

The prosecution argued that the first orders authorized FBI bugging of the "premises" of Edwin Edwards' law office, broad enough to plant a hidden mike in Stephen Edwards' office.

The issue is important because if the FBI wiretap authorization was flawed, much of the case based on bugging Stephen Edwards' office would be thrown out. That would include most of the charges relating to allegations the Edwardses extorted Eddie DeBartolo, former owner of the San Francisco 49ers, who won the state's 15th gambling license. That license was quickly surrendered after the investigation went public.

Security was unusually tight around the courthouse, located in the heart of downtown New Orleans. Extra city and other police guarded the building's entrance. The airport-like security inside the building was stepped up, with more sensitive metal detectors.

Everyone - lawyers, defendants, their families, reporters, judges' family and law clerks, and other prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's office - had to check in at 12:45 p.m., 45 minutes prior to the scheduled 1:30 court hearing. Reporters showed credentials to a clerk who checked off authorized names from a pre-approved list. Family members and others had numbered tickets.

Around 1:30 p.m., some 40 other people waiting at the door were let in on a first-come, first-seated basis. While everyone associated with this case for its public five-year duration smiled and greeted one another, the law clerks sat reverently and silently in their assigned benches.

Finally, around 1:45 p.m., the three judges entered the courtroom and the 160 or so folks packed into the elegant, mahogany paneled courtroom fell silent. Edwin Edwards, who has difficulty hearing at times, was not the only person who had to strain to hear the judges' questions.

When it was over, the prosecution voiced confidence in their case. "We have always been confident," said Acting U.S. Attorney Jim Letten, who is under consideration for appointment to the post.

Dershowitz said he felt confident because the judges' questions indicated they had studied the case and the defense's issues very carefully. "They got right to the heart of the contended important issues," he said. "The judges were very well prepared."

Besides Higginbotham, the other two judges who will decide whether Edwards goes immediately to jail or gets a new trial are Judge Jacques L. Wiener Jr. of Shreveport and Judge Fortunato Benavides, of Austin, Texas.

Jim Cole of Washington, D.C., another attorney representing the Edwardses, said he felt good. "While the questions from the bench are not an indication of what judges are thinking, they are certainly and indication of how well-prepared they were," Cole said. "When you understand this case and you do your homework, the ruling will be in our favor."