Follow-Up Q&A with the Rocky Mountain News

This post is the first in a series of 3 follow-up questions relating to an earlier Q&A set with the Rocky Mountain News. (You may read limited excerpts of the original Q&A set in the article entitled "DU students, professors weigh in on ex-CEO's trial “ on April 16^th, or scroll down for a complete list.)

1) We asked you before the jury started deliberations what the best evidence was for each side, what the best tactics were for each side, who had the best openings and closings, and what your verdict would be. Now that the verdict is in - guilty on the April and May trades, not guilty on the January through March trades - how do you feel about your answers last week?

Kevin O’Brien : I thought that either Nacchio would be convicted on all counts or at least on trades in April and May since by then, there was ample evidence that Nacchio traded on material nonpublic information. As far as the defense’s strategy not to have Nacchio testify, I wonder if Nacchio will always second guess that decision. The defense misread the possibility of a guilty verdict and a jury member has stated he wanted Nacchio to testify to understand his state of mind given all the evidence of insider trading.

John Holcomb :  I stand by all the answers I gave last week.  The jury apparently did not find as definitive evidence the backdated document authorizing the earlier sale of shares, since the jury found only the sales after April 26^th as based on inside information.  Though I believe there was a strong basis for a guilty verdict on more counts and earlier conduct, the jury did a splendid job of weighing the facts and arriving at guilty verdicts on those counts where the evidence was overwhelming.  Nacchio’s decision on March 1^st to revoke his plan to systematically sell shares at regular intervals and instead to dump large amounts of shares, along with his subsequent April 26^th sale after the bullish investor call amidst all the internal warnings from his top officers, obviously galvanized the jury on its verdict.  Juror interviews reflect my own evaluation of the opening and closing statements as well, which distinctly favored the prosecution.  The jury then labored carefully through all of the evidence in rendering its just verdict, whether or not it was driven by some amount of compromise.      

Vaughn Marshall : I’m not entirely surprised that the jury found Nacchio guilty on the charges that they did. The defense did not really seem to have an answer to a lot of the prosecution’s evidence for these charges and focused more on the charges relating to earlier dates. The prosecution’s evidence for these counts was fairly simple; consisting primarily of Nacchio’s abandonment of the prearranged selling plan and testimony regarding what various Qwest employees and industry analysts told Nacchio about the financial health of the company. The DOJ was again successful employing a KISS strategy.

Armin Sarabi : I predicted that Nacchio would be found "not guilty" on a majority of the counts (if the jury was able to make a decision at all), so in that sense I think I was right, although I can't say it was all that difficult. I didn't think the government had much of a case for the earlier trades, and as I mentioned last week, the Defense did a good job of poking holes in the Government's case (enough to reduce Mr. Nacchio's guilt from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "a preponderance of evidence against him"). As for the "best evidence" question, I can say that I was not impressed with the backdated document last week, and I can see the jury wasn't impressed by it either (at least not enough to convict Mr. Nacchio on any more counts).