In the actual Frank Quattrone 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.
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 "obstruction of justice". But the prosecution was unable to prove the relevance of the documents in question because they had been destroyed.
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?