A jury of six men and six women delivered the guilty verdict for Quattrone after two days of deliberations, concluding that Mr. Quattrone tried to block investigations by regulators and a grand jury when he forwarded an e-mail message in late 2000 urging colleagues to clean up their files.
Mr. Quattrone was found guilty of two counts of obstruction of justice and one count of witness tampering. He will be sentenced at a later date.
As the verdict was announced, Mr. Quattrone sat stone-faced, looking straight ahead. His mother, sitting behind him, broke down in tears.
After his first trial, which ended in a hung jury last Oct. 24, one juror said that his appearance on the witness stand damaged his case and changed some minds.
“I heard a lot of jurors say if he hadn’t been a witness, it would have been not guilty on the first day,” said the juror, Mayo Villalona, a 26-year-old Manhattan resident who works at HSBC Holdings.
The retrial presented two key differences: gone was the stumbling, visibly nervous Mr. Quattrone, and the star prosecution witness, David M. Brodsky, toned down some of his more alarmist testimony from the first trial.
This time around Mr. Quattrone responded directly and without evasion to the question of whether he had had anything to do with the allocations of initial public offerings. In October Mr. Quattrone told his lawyers under cross-examination that he had not, only to contradict that when prosecutors presented scores of e-mail messages that showed him repeatedly involved in trying to influence which clients received offers.
In the retrial, Mr. Quattrone responded “yes” when asked by his lawyer, John Keker, “Were there instances in which you sought to have input into the the allocation of I.P.O. shares?”
The shift in testimony by Mr. Brodsky, the former general counsel for Credit Suisse First Boston, came when he backtracked on an intimation that Mr. Quattrone should have known to suspend the company’s regular policy of purging documents.
He was expected to have testified that he explicity warned Mr. Quattrone of a grand jury and Secutities and Exchange Commission investigation just hours before Mr. Quattrone sent a single e-mail message to staff members endorsing a colleague’s directions to follow the company’s documention retention policy and destroy files.
But on April 22, asked during cross-examination by Mr. Keker if he thought Mr. Quattrone had done anything wrong, Mr. Brodsky replied, “No.”