So all we can assume is at least one juror may not believe the bugs of is being methodical.
I don't think this conclusion can be supported simply because at least one juror wants to look at particular evidence or rehear particular testimony. All one can really conclude is that at least one juror is being methodical. If its the CPA, its going to be a long, long, jury deliberation and the other jurors may get so frustrated with him he may need a restraining order against the otherts when thiscase is over.
Look at it this way, its a dead time of year for most CPAs and this guy may not have anything better to do; and most CPAs are anal to one degree or another, present company excepted. :-)