The Jury and Materiality

This morning, the jury asked to have reread the instruction on materiality.  Judge Nottingham opted to read the entire set of instructions in order to not single out a particular provision.  The instruction has been posted on the Denver Post blog.   The instruction repeated the definition known to anyone practicing in this area, that information is material "so long as a reasonable investor would consider it important in deciding to act or not to act."

What does this mean with respect to the jury's deliberations?  The defense did make an issue out of materiality (that the non-recurring revenue was no different than recurring revenue and therefore not material) but it was an issue that the government hit very hard.  The government obtained the testimony of two analysts, both of whom indicated that they considered the percentage of the non-recurring revenue in the first quarter to be important.  The defense put greater emphasis on Joe Nacchio's state of mind, that he genuinely believed Qwest could make the projected numbers.  To the extent the request for the instruction suggests that the focus is on materiality rather than state of mind, then it is probably a good sign for the government.

Having said all of that, trying to deduce the jury's posture from a single request is like reading entrails, probably not all that useful.