Contributors' Opinions to the Rocky Mountain News

The Rocky Mountain News published in its business section the article entitled “DU students, professors weigh in on ex-CEO’s trial.” David Milstead, a business reporter for the newspaper, requested opinions from four contributors of this blog to the following questions:

1. What was the best evidence the prosecution had?
2. What was the best evidence the defense had?
3. What were prosecution’s tactical strengths?
4. What were the defense’s tactical strengths?
5. Who had the best opening and closing arguments?
6. What else from this trial stands out for you?
7. What would your verdict be?

While the Rocky Mountains News story involved excerpts of these opinions, we would like to offer the full unedited version of the answers from Kevin O’Brien and John Holcomb, Daniels College of Business law professors, and Vaughn Marshall and Armin Sarabi, law students of the University of Denver). Each day this week, we will post one question and the complete answer starting today with the first question below.

1. What was the best evidence the prosecution had?

Kevin O’Brien : The best evidence relates to Nacchio’s intent to use material nonpublic information to defraud purchasers of his Qwest stock. First, Nacchio chose to backdate his first selling plan for his growth shares to Nov. 3, 2000 to avoid the material nonpublic information he received in December of 2000. Second, Nacchio terminated his safe harbor second trading plan in February 2001 providing an inference that he wanted to start dumping large blocks of shares before bad financial news is given to the public.

Vaughn Marshall : In my opinion, the backdated document relating to Nacchio’s January 2 and 3 sales became the closest thing the government was going to get to a “smoking gun.” If the jury believes that this proves Nacchio traded on the basis of material, nonpublic information in regards to the first two charges, it really increases the possibility that the prosecution will obtain convictions on all the other counts.

John Holcomb : In the prosecution’s strong case, the best evidence was that of Nacchio backdating his authorization to sell shares. It was the closest thing to a “smoking gun” and was very helpful in establishing Nacchio’s intent to engage in wrongdoing. It also fit nicely into a pattern of deceit, as Nacchio had consistently issued positive guidance to analysts and investors in the face of a company in collapse, while his competitors were more honestly issuing warnings.

Armin Sarabi : Unfortunately, the Government did not have a "smoking gun" here, so I can't say they provided any one piece of evidence that made their case. Rather, the Government had to piece a story together using several necessary and equally important testimonies from key players. With that said, I found the testimony from Afshin Mohebbi to be most convincing because he came off as the most credible witness, who had several interactions with Mr. Nacchio regarding the anticipated shortfall in Qwest's numbers.