In his closing argument, defense attorney Sam Adam Jr. urged jurors in Rod Blagojevich's corruption trial to ask themselves a question: "What would Sam say?"

Turns out what they really want to know is, "What did the government say?"

Early in their second day of deliberations, jurors in the ex-governor's trial sent out a note from the jury room Thursday morning.

Their request: a transcript of the prosecution's closing argument.

The request will be denied, U.S. District Judge James Zagel said in court shortly afterward, because closing arguments are not evidence.

The note was enough to make the three prosecutors on the case look at one another and laugh. Blagojevich's defense team also opposed the request.

Still, Zagel said he understood why the jury might want the transcript.

"What the government largely gave them at certain points in its closing was a roadmap," the judge said.

In his closing argument Monday, prosecutor Chris Niewoehner laid out the charges against Blagojevich and his brother, clearly explaining each of the 28 counts and matching them with the evidence the prosecution believed proved their case.

The indictment, on the other hand -- one of the few documents jurors may use in their deliberations -- is complicated and filled with legal jargon.

Zagel said if the jury really needs the "roadmap," he would likely receive another note from them.

"And I will deal with it," the judge said.