NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Government attorneys called efforts by Arthur Andersen LLP, which was convicted of obstructing justice for destroying Enron Corp. documents, for a new trial "deficient" and an attempt to flout legal precedent.

The Justice Department, in a motion filed in Houston federal court, said Andersen was properly convicted of obstruction after a five-week trial in which it was represented by four law firms and allowed to call a dozen witnesses.

"The overwhelming trial evidence clearly supports the jury's guilty verdict, and therefore granting a new trial would be an abuse of discretion," the government said.

Chicago-based Andersen was found guilty on June 16 of one count of obstruction for destroying Enron documents while on notice of a federal investigation. The accounting firm has since agreed to stop practicing as of Aug. 31.

On the day it delivered its verdict, some of the 12 jurors said during a press conference that they voted to convict Andersen based on the actions of the firm's attorney, Nancy Temple, who asked Andersen executives to remove certain information from a draft copy of a memo. The jurors said their unanimous verdict to convict was based on the removal of words, not on the shredding of Enron documents.

On June 25, Andersen asked a federal judge to invalidate the jury verdict and acquit the firm or grant the former accounting giant a new trial. Attorneys for the auditor maintained that the Justice Department failed to prove that Andersen's shredding and deleting of documents amounted to obstruction of justice.

Government prosecutors said Wednesday that Andersen's attempt to dump the verdict is based on "hearsay testimony" from the jurors, which is prohibited by the Federal Rules of Evidence. And even if the testimony is allowed, such information is "spotty at best," the government said. The jurors' interview after the verdict was not an in-depth discussion regarding the basis of their decision. The jurors disagreed with each other as to what transpired, federal prosecutors said.

Andersen's guilty verdict was also based on compelling evidence against the firm, including its attempt to resurrect a "document retention and destruction" policy at a time when it knew that a federal investigation had been launched, the government said.