I haven't been watching in the courtroom and only know what I'm reading in the press about the Ebbers trial, but the snippets I'm seeing are looking pretty ominous for the prosecution.  The New York Times reports that yesterday, Bert C. Roberts (a WorldCom board member through 2002)

said he had a meeting with Mr. Sullivan on June 20, 2002, the same day that WorldCom's board confronted Mr. Sullivan about questionable accounting changes that he approved.

"I asked Scott whether Bernie knew and his answer to me was that Bernie did not know of the journal entries," Mr. Roberts said. "I did not pursue the issue further."

* * *

However, during cross-examination, Mr. Roberts confirmed that Mr. Sullivan only said Mr. Ebbers did not know about "journal entries," not the entire fraud. By asking Mr. Roberts to confirm this detail, prosecutors tried to highlight that Mr. Ebbers may not have known about specific items on WorldCom's ledgers, but he still could have known about Mr. Sullivan's broader efforts to commit fraud.

Ebbers "could have known?"  That's where things stand now for the prosecution?  That seems miles away from "beyond a reasonable doubt," doesn't it?

So now it appears that the prosecution is relying on (1) the jury to conclude that "hit the numbers" meant "go commit fraud," and (2) the jury to conclude that Sullivan's response above to what appears to have been a pretty straightforward question from Roberts--did Ebbers know about the questionable accounting?--somehow meant "yes" (or at least didn't mean "no").