Amy Mason Saharia

Amy Mason Saharia represented Elizabeth Holmes in evidentiary and sufficiency arguments and in the conferences that shaped the jury instructions and verdict form. Her recorded work included disputes over proposed testimony, late disclosures, the Rule 29 motion, and the language governing conspiracy and wire-fraud charges.

Saharia addressed the proposed testimony of Fabrizio Bonanni and the timing of related disclosures. The court questioned whether the proposed evidence risked blending investor and patient issues. In a separate evidentiary exchange, she argued that two conflicting HIV antibody reports did not themselves establish whether the patient had HIV and that comparing results produced by different testing methods presented an apples-to-oranges problem. The prosecution disputed that position and argued that the jury could consider the conflicting results without expert testimony. Saharia later participated when the defense renewed its Rule 29 motion.

Saharia's most sustained activity concerned jury instructions. She proposed defense language addressing willfulness, mere association, Pinkerton liability, and the organization of the conspiracy and wire-fraud charges. The court compared the proposals with its preliminary instructions, while the prosecution accepted some clarifying language and objected to repetition or additions beyond the model instructions. Saharia continued to present the defense's requested formulations and objections through the final charge, verdict-form, CMS limiting-instruction, and remaining-instruction conferences.