Opinion ID: 793659
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Absence of a Nexus Charge for Count 3 27

Text: 101 In his Reply Brief, filed after the Supreme Court's decision in Arthur Andersen, Quattrone correctly contends that the section 1512(b) instruction was erroneous because the district court understandably 28 told the jury that it need not find any nexus between Quattrone's actions and the pending investigations. Reply Br. 23. In its Supplemental Brief filed the day before oral argument, the government argues that the section 1512(b) instruction error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the instruction referred specifically to the SEC and grand jury investigations and because the court provided a nexus charge for Counts 1 and 2. Gov. Supp. Br. 8-9. We disagree. 102 The government's proceedings argument falls short of establishing harmless error. The thrust of that argument is that because the district court effectively charged that the jury had to find that Quattrone acted with the knowingly . . . corrupt[] intent to cause the withholding of documents or testimony from the grand jury and SEC investigations or to cause the destruction of documents with intent to impair the object's . . . availability for use in the grand jury and SEC investigations, there was no reasonable probability Quattrone was wrongly convicted. Id. According to the government, the nexus was self evident under the facts of this case. Id. 103 The burden of establishing harmlessness is on the government. See, e.g., Gutierrez v. McGinnis, 389 F.3d 300, 303 (2d Cir.2004) (propounding upon harmless error rules in context of habeas petition). 29 Here, there was more than a failure to charge an essential element of the crime charged. The court informed the jury that a prerequisite to criminal liability — some nexus between the effort to tamper with or withhold documents pertaining to the relevant proceeding and awareness that such conduct was likely to affect the proceeding — was inapplicable. Given this error, the disputed evidence of Quattrone's awareness as to whether the investigations called for documents to be culled as a result of his Endorsement Email, and the inadequacy of the nexus charges on Counts 1 & 2, we cannot confidently say that if a rational jury was properly instructed, it is clear to us beyond a reasonable doubt that they would have convicted Quattrone on Count 3. Accordingly, the conviction on Count 3 must be vacated, and the case remanded to the district court for retrial.