NEW YORK ? Jurors in the Tyco International case asked a judge yesterday to clarify three counts related to the prosecution?s charge that two former executives stole $38.5 million from the company by disguising it as loan forgivenesses.

Three counts of grand larceny, the top counts against former chief executive L. Dennis Kozlowski and former chief financial officer Mark Swartz, were the subject of the jury?s focus on the 10th day of deliberations.

State Supreme Court Justice Michael Obus explained that one ?aggregate count? covers the entire alleged $38.5 million theft in that charge. He said two additional counts refer to the individual amounts allegedly stolen by Kozlowski and Swartz, each with the other?s help.

Kozlowski, 57, and Swartz, 43, are accused of looting Tyco of $600 million, through stock manipulation, secretly forgiven loans and multimillion-dollar bonus grabs. Charged with 32 counts of grand larceny, falsifying business records and violating state business laws, they could face up to 30 years in prison if convicted.

The defence says all money and other benefits the defendants received were known to internal and external auditors and were approved by members of Tyco?s board of directors.

The ?aggregate? count also includes a loan forgiveness to former Tyco events planner Barbara Jacques.

Jacques, who testified that she and Kozlowski had an affair during the 1980s, said she received nearly $500,000 in forgiven loans and tax benefits in 2000.

She also testified that she received a $497,000 loan forgiveness in 1998 in lieu of money she borrowed from Tyco to buy an apartment.

Jurors also sent a late-afternoon note asking to review some exhibits from the trial, but it was not immediately clear which exhibits they wanted to see.

Earlier yesterday, the jurors reheard a readback of Swartz?s testimony.

Swartz, the only defence witness, testified about his conversations with Kozlowski about the forgiven loans and $72 million in bonuses they received.

The jurors had asked last week to rehear the Swartz testimony.

Then they requested a delay, and last Thursday their deliberations suffered a rancorous collapse that threatened to cause a mistrial.

The resumption of deliberations apparently marked a reduction in rancour. One jury note last week described the atmosphere as ?poisonous.?

On Tuesday, the defence complained that one heavily scrutinised juror has been the subject of venomous attacks in Internet chat rooms.

On Monday, the judge rejected a defence request for a mistrial, based on concerns that the juror apparently was holding out for acquittal.

Juror No. 4 had become the object of intense scrutiny.

Some news organisations reported that she had made an ?OK? gesture directed at the defence while walking to the jury box on Friday. Yet what gesture she made, or whether she intended to make a gesture at all, remained in dispute.

Defence and prosecution lawyers said they hadn?t seen a gesture. An Associated Press reporter witnessed the gesture but did not interpret it as an ?OK? sign. During court sessions, the same juror repeatedly brushed at her hair, her fingers crooked.