Conviction Overturned for Banking Star Quattrone

  • Playlist
  • Download
  • Embed
    <iframe src="" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript

Frank Quattrone, a leading investment banker during the Internet boom, may face a third trial after an appeals court tossed out his conviction. The court concluded the jury was improperly advised during his 2004 trial. Quattrone was convicted on charges that he obstructed a government probe into stock offerings at the height of the dot-com boom.


In our business news today, a new trial for a man made famous during the dot-com boom.

(Soundbite of music)

A federal appeals court has tossed out the conviction of star investment banker Frank Quattrone. He was convicted on obstruction of justice charges in 2004. The court said that jury had been given improper instructions.

The court also ordered the case turned over to a new judge. NPR's Jim Zarroli reports.

JIM ZARROLI reporting:

Frank Quattrone was a renowned figure in Silicon Valley during the dot-com boom--someone who helped bring some of the nation's most successful tech companies public, including Netscape and Amazon. He was convicted of trying to hinder a federal investigation into stock offerings by his company, Credit Suisse First Boston.

At the time, U.S. officials had issued a subpoena seeking certain company documents. A banker who worked in Quattrone's division sent out an email urging employees to clean out their files, and Quattrone then sent out his own email echoing the order.

In his defense, Quattrone said he didn't really understand which documents were subpoenaed by the government, and that at any rate, he never intended to interfere with the investigation. But he was sentenced to 18 months in prison, a sentence that was delayed pending an appeal. Yesterday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals said the judge hearing the case, Richard Owen, had failed to instruct the jury properly.

John Coffee teaches securities law at Columbia University.

Professor JOHN COFFEE (Adolf A. Berle Professor of Law, Columbia Law School): The critical requirement for obstruction of justice, according to the Second Circuit, is that the defendant had to be aware that the specific documents destroyed were requested by the subpoena, and that his actions were likely to affect the proceeding.

ZARROLI: The court said the judge should have told the jury this, and because he didn't, the court ordered a new trial.

The appeals court did say that had the judge instructed the jurors correctly, it's likely they would have convicted Quattrone anyway. Coffee says that is good news for the U.S. Attorney's office, which prosecuted the case, and it increases the likelihood that U.S. officials will try the case again. If they do, the case will be heard by a new judge.

The appeals court said it didn't doubt Judge Owen's impartiality, but it said some of the comments he made during the trial could be viewed as rising beyond mere impatience or annoyance. If Quattrone is tried again, it would be for the third time. His first trial ended in a hung jury.

Jim Zarroli, NPR News, New York.

Copyright © 2006 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio.



Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

NPR thanks our sponsors

Become an NPR sponsor

Support comes from