Jurors deliberating for the ninth day in Arthur Andersen LLP’s obstruction of justice trial were awaiting a ruling by the presiding Houston judge Friday afternoon that may offer crucial guidance in determining a decision of guilt or innocence. Judge Melinda Harmon was asked by the jurors to rule on whether they all must agree on which individual at Andersen acted corruptly when the firm destroyed Enron Corp. records last fall.

In the first of a series of notes sent Thursday — after telling Harmon that they were deadlocked a day earlier — the jurors asked Harmon, “If each of us believes that one Andersen agent acted knowingly and with a corrupt intent, is it for all of us to believe it was the same agent? Can one believe it was agent A, can one believe it was agent B, and one believe it agent C?” If Harmon rules that the jury does not have to be unanimous in its agreement about Andersen individuals acting corruptly, experts believe the jury will quickly find the accounting firm guilty.

Harmon’s answer is considered key, because she instructed the jury at the beginning of deliberations that it must return a guilty verdict if it finds an “agent or agents” of Andersen “acted knowingly or with corrupt intent.” She heard brief arguments from both sides on what her answer should say late Thursday, and noted that before she instructed the jury, she wanted to review more case law.

Separately, jurors also asked for certain testimony to be read back to them. The segment read on Thursday involved Andersen senior partner Amy Ripepi’s testimony about her recollection of what Andersen lawyer Nancy Temple told her in retaining Enron documents. The jury also asked for evidence or testimony relating to Temple, former lead Enron auditor David Duncan and senior partner Michael Odom. The government has termed them “corrupt persuaders,” or those they allege caused others at the firm to break the law.

Duncan’s testimony concerning an Andersen conference call last October about Enron’s growing troubles with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was read back Friday morning and into the afternoon. Duncan pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice on April 9, and is cooperating with prosecutors. The federal prosecutors argued that Duncan’s guilty plea is enough to find the firm as a whole guilty.

Jurors also wanted to review a prosecution videotape in which Odom told employees that it was “great” if they destroyed some records under Andersen’s record-keeping policy. However, Andersen attorneys had argued to the jury that destroying extraneous records is a standard business practice to protect client confidentiality. Prosecutors allege that in Andersen’s case, it was used as a stealth directive to destroy records that would cause Andersen to be investigated by the SEC.

©Copyright 2002 Intelligence Press Inc. Allrights reserved. The preceding news report may not be republishedor redistributed, in whole or in part, in any form, without priorwritten consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.