Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
personpersonChanning RobertsonChanning RobertsonScientist, Stanford professor, and former Theranos board member.← All People
MentionedTheranos

Channing Robertson

Scientist, Stanford professor, and former Theranos board member.

MentionedFederal Criminal Trial
15 proceedings·15 mentions

About

Channing Robertson taught Holmes at Stanford and supervised her laboratory work, according to the defense opening and Holmes's testimony. Those accounts linked her early exposure to microfluidics with the origins of her Theranos work. Testimony and documents also associated Robertson with Theranos as a scientific adviser and participant in technology-advisory work, including the development narrative for proposed multi-method testing systems and System 4.0.

Robertson also served as an outside source for people evaluating Theranos. Grossman said PFM consulted him during technical diligence, while Parloff identified him as an interview source for the Fortune profile that Mosley later considered in assessing the company. Robertson's role was presented through other witnesses, argument, and documents rather than through his own trial testimony.

Trial Record (15)

FederalFederal Criminal TrialAug 31, 2021 – Jan 3, 2022

Channing Robertson figured in the trial as Holmes's former Stanford professor and laboratory supervisor, a Theranos scientific adviser, and an outside source consulted during investor diligence and reporting about the company.

Jury Selection Day 1

Voir DireCourt-Led Voir Dire of Panel OneMentioned

Summary

The court screened Panel One for accommodations, witness connections, media exposure, and bias, retaining Mr. Chuang for further inquiry after he acknowledged that a documentary had influenced his opinion of the defense.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 4

Day 21

CrossDaniel Edlin — CrossDaniel EdlinKevin M. Downey1highlightMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel narrowed Daniel Edlin's technical expertise, elicited that he relied on Theranos scientists and did not believe his external communications were false, and developed his operational role in a multi-site burn study. The court later deferred a Rule 106 decision about FDA-inspection text messages.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (1)

Quote“I RECALL THAT WE HAD SOME INTERACTIONS AFTER THE FIRST ARTICLES CAME OUT IN "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL," WHICH WAS IN OCTOBER OF 2015, AND I THINK HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE ARTICLES AND WHAT THE COMPANY WAS DOING TO TRY TO REBUT SOME OF THOSE CLAIMS OR HOW HE WAS WORKING THROUGH THAT. I THINK WE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS AROUND THAT.”— Daniel EdlinEdlin recalled Channing Robertson expressing concern after the October 2015 Wall Street Journal articles and discussing the company's response.Open in transcript →

Day 22

CrossDaniel Edlin — Cross (Resumed)Daniel EdlinKevin M. DowneyMentioned

Summary

Daniel Edlin described Theranos's collaborative process for sourcing, reviewing, tailoring, and revising investor, website, media, and patient-facing claims. The court admitted numerous supporting emails and presentations, excluded a collective of customer-feedback reports on relevance grounds, and admitted an email concerning an external technology advisory board.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 23

ProceduralEvidentiary Conference on Tolbert ExhibitsMentioned

Summary

Judge Davila ordered the admission process for Exhibit 5387-D repeated before the jury and heard competing arguments over Tolbert-related notes and a 2016 shareholder communication, leaving their disputed uses unresolved pending testimony and cross-examination.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 27

Day 33

Day 34

CrossBrian Grossman — CrossBrian GrossmanLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Grossman acknowledged that PFM knew of technical, regulatory, execution, venous-draw, and patient-experience risks before investing, while maintaining that PFM conducted extensive diligence, viewed many risks as limited or manageable, and relied partly on Theranos representations when access to company-specific outside review was restricted.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 35

Day 36

DirectFabrizio Bonanni — DirectFabrizio BonanniKatherine TrefzMentioned

Summary

Bonanni explained the Minilab through demonstratives and described Theranos's 2016 board debates, regulatory strategy, and quality and compliance reforms. He praised Holmes's receptiveness to advice but identified operational focus and regulatory execution as weaknesses; several proposed opinions were excluded.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 37

DirectElizabeth A. Holmes — DirectElizabeth A. HolmesKevin M. DowneyMentioned

Summary

Holmes described the 1 Series cartridge failure, development of the 3 Series, research studies, and pharmaceutical validation work. She acknowledged limits and unrealized projects while saying internal presentations led her to believe a proposed 4 Series could run any blood test; several partner communications were admitted only for state-of-mind purposes.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 38

DirectElizabeth A. Holmes — DirectElizabeth A. HolmesKevin M. DowneyMentioned

Summary

Holmes described Theranos's 4 Series development, Walgreens and Safeway partnerships, clinical validation, FDA disclosures, marketing, investor communications, and financial projections. She admitted adding pharmaceutical logos to Theranos reports and regretted how that was handled, while attributing limited disclosure of modified commercial analyzers to trade-secret advice.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 46

Day 47