Can a jury find guilt based mainly on &quot;mens rea?&quot;
<p>In the actual <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11928477/ns/business-corporate_scandals/t/frank-quattrones-conviction-overturned/#.WTptgoWcHIU" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Frank Quattrone</a> case, the conviction of the investment banker was overturned by an appeallate court, because the trial judge had wrongly instructed the jury to disregard "mens rea" (guilty knowledge) in ordering the destruction of documents.</p>

<p>Suppose, in I call a "reverse Quattrone" case, the jury found that the defendant had mens rea in ordering the destruction of documents in an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"obstruction of justice"</a>. But the prosecution was unable to prove the relevance of the documents in question because they had been destroyed.</p>

<p>Could an American jury still find guilt based on its finding of mens rea? That is, the jury thinks, "we don't know what this guy is hiding, but he sure must be hiding something?</p>

<p>In a criminal case, a jury is required to find that all of the elements of the crime are present beyond a reasonable doubt. Mens rea is one element of most crimes, but is almost never the only one that the prosecution must prove.</p>

<p>A jury does not need to have direct proof of each of those elements. Some or all of them may be established with circumstantial evidence. But, it must find beyond a reasonable doubt that every element is true. </p>

<p>So, in a "reverse Quattrone" case, a jury that was faithfully following the jury instructions given to it would have to acquit the defendant on that charge.</p>

united-states criminal-law mens-rea