Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
personpersonDaniel EdlinDaniel EdlinFormer Theranos senior product manager who worked on demonstrations, partnerships, and external communications.← All People
WitnessTheranos

Daniel Edlin

Former Theranos senior product manager who worked on demonstrations, partnerships, and external communications.

AppearedFederal Criminal Trial
1,985 lines·33 proceedings·24 mentions

About

Daniel Edlin testified for the prosecution about his Theranos work from 2011 through 2016, first on partnerships and the Walgreens rollout and later in the Office of the CEO. He described compartmentalized information, controlled visitor tours, temporarily staged devices, and demonstration procedures that included null protocols and software that concealed device errors from viewers.

His direct examination linked those practices to the review of test results and the preparation of public communications and investor materials. Edlin testified that technical personnel and Holmes reviewed results that were later removed or revised, and he described Holmes's involvement in website language, investor binders, and other external communications. He repeatedly identified claims for which he lacked an independent technical basis.

Edlin also addressed Theranos's military contacts. He distinguished research, security testing, and proposed evaluations from clinical deployment, testifying that, to his knowledge, Theranos analyzers were not used clinically for deployed soldiers or in a battlefield setting.

On cross-examination, Edlin acknowledged that he was not a scientist or engineer, relied on technical specialists, and could not remember some events. He denied knowingly providing false information or trying to deceive demonstration recipients, described external presentations as collaboratively reviewed and tailored to their audiences, and declined to accept several broader characterizations posed by defense counsel.

Redirect clarified that Edlin's views about other employees' intentions were assumptions rather than personal knowledge. He maintained that demonstration errors were hidden and that inconsistent results were not always reported, identified Holmes and Daniel Young as having final authority over reported demonstration results, and could not explain how those practices furthered the stated purpose of showing the technology's performance. He testified that repeated failures to demonstrate the technology after critical reporting caused serious doubts and contributed to his departure in December 2016.

Trial Record (33)

FederalFederal Criminal TrialAug 31, 2021 – Jan 3, 2022Called by prosecution

Daniel Edlin testified for the prosecution about Theranos demonstrations, military projects, investor and media materials, and Holmes's review of external communications. The defense emphasized his limited technical expertise and reliance on specialists, while redirect addressed concealed errors, selected results, and the doubts that preceded his departure.

Day 13

Day 20

ProceduralExhibit 1496 Admissibility HearingMentioned

Summary

The defense challenged Exhibit 1496, an email reporting comments from a military meeting, while the prosecution argued it bore on Holmes's knowledge and state of mind; the court left admissibility unresolved pending context and foundation.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectDaniel Edlin — DirectDaniel EdlinJohn C. Bostic4highlights149lines spoken

Summary

Daniel Edlin described Theranos's information controls, Walgreens work, staged visitor tours, and technology demonstrations, then used an admitted August 2013 email chain to explain null protocols, separate laboratory processing, and a demo application that concealed protocol failures.

Highlights (4)

testimony highlightEdlin described his roles from 2011 through 2016, his increasing work with Holmes, and his decision to leave after concluding that Theranos could not stand behind its technology claims.Open in transcript →
Quote“SECOND, YOU KNOW, AT THAT TIME I NO LONGER BELIEVED, BASED ON WHAT I WAS SEEING, THAT THE COMPANY WAS CAPABLE OF STANDING BEHIND THE CLAIMS IT HAD BEEN MAKING ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY.”— Daniel EdlinEdlin gave his central reason for leaving Theranos and tied it to what he had observed by late 2016.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightEdlin testified that information was compartmentalized on a need-to-know basis under directions he received from Christian Holmes, Elizabeth Holmes, and Ramesh Balwani.Open in transcript →
Quote“MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE DEMO APP WOULD BE USED IN TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS AND IF, DURING THE PROCESSING, AN ERROR OCCURRED, THIS APP WOULD NOT SAY ON THE SCREEN, IT WOULD NOT EXPRESS THAT AN ERROR HAD TAKEN PLACE.”— Daniel EdlinEdlin explained his understanding that the demonstration interface concealed processing errors from its audience.Open in transcript →

Day 21

DirectDaniel Edlin — DirectDaniel EdlinJohn C. Bostic4highlights301lines spoken

Summary

Daniel Edlin described concealed demonstration errors, selective removal or reframing of test results, third-party processing, and internal technical problems. He also linked Holmes to report review, revised external communications, and detailed approval of website content while qualifying the limits of his own technical knowledge.

Highlights (4)

Quote“THE NULL PROTOCOL WAS A PART OF THE DEMO APPLICATION. DEMO APPLICATION WAS SET UP ON DEVICES FOR TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS, AND PER SOME OF THE EMAILS WE'VE REVIEWED LAST WEEK, IN THE DEMO APPLICATION IT SHIELDED DEVICE ERRORS FROM VIEW. AND THE NULL PROTOCOL WAS USED FOR -- WAS NOT INTENDED FOR THE SAMPLES TO BE TESTED FOR USE.”— Daniel EdlinEdlin described the demonstration software and null protocol in his own words, including that the application concealed device errors from the viewer.Open in transcript →
evidence eventExhibit 860 was admitted, and Edlin used the email chain to describe discrepant demonstration runs, review by Daniel Young and Elizabeth Holmes, and changes to reference ranges that could make results appear normal or closer to normal.Open in transcript →
confrontationExhibit 3070 showed internal reporting that several comparison-study results were contaminated or questionable for unknown reasons. Edlin then confirmed that Holmes's proposed explanation referred to human error and inability to run assays even though the earlier account said there was no human error and that assays had produced questionable results.Open in transcript →
Quote“VERY INVOLVED AND DETAIL ORIENTED. THERE WERE STEPS ALONG THE WAY IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT THAT PROBABLY DIDN'T REACH HER REVIEW EVERY TIME. BUT FOR THE END PRODUCT AND WHAT ACTUALLY WENT ONTO THE WEBSITE, SHE DID HAVE A HAND -- SHE DID REVIEW THAT.”— Daniel EdlinEdlin characterized Holmes's involvement in final website review while qualifying that she did not necessarily review every development step.Open in transcript →
DirectDaniel Edlin — Direct (Resumed)Daniel EdlinJohn C. Bostic3highlights227lines spoken

Summary

Daniel Edlin linked Holmes to the review and approval of media responses, investor materials, patient-response messaging, and military communications. He also qualified his knowledge of technical claims, describing military devices that could perform only a subset of tests and complaint processes outside his responsibilities.

Highlights (3)

testimony highlightEdlin testified that Holmes approved the materials used in investor binders. Exhibits 1940 and 4869 were admitted, and the latter contained claims about comprehensive fingerstick testing, higher-integrity data, and the highest levels of accuracy.Open in transcript →
Quote“SHE WAS HIGHLY INVOLVED. I WOULD SAY ANY SUBSTANTIVE COMMUNICATION THAT I HAD WITH THE MILITARY I EITHER DISCUSSED WITH HER AHEAD OF TIME, OUR DISCUSSIONS INFORMED EMAIL DRAFTS THAT I WOULD THEN SEND BACK TO HER TO REVIEW AND APPROVE BEFORE I SENT THEM BACK OUT. I ALSO MADE SURE THAT SHE WAS AWARE OF ANY INBOUND COMMUNICATION THAT WE DID GET FROM MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY. AND ASIDE FROM, YOU KNOW, SCHEDULING AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I REVIEWED EVERYTHING WITH HER.”— Daniel EdlinEdlin directly described Holmes's involvement in developing, reviewing, and approving substantive communications with military representatives.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightEdlin said three devices were eventually sent to Special Operations Command for evaluation, not clinical treatment. He recalled being told that they could run only a subset of tests, could not perform a CBC, and were received without further evaluation activity of which he was aware.Open in transcript →
DirectDaniel Edlin — Direct (Resumed)Daniel EdlinJohn C. Bostic1highlight116lines spoken

Summary

Daniel Edlin distinguished Theranos's military research, evaluation, and cybersecurity testing from clinical deployment, contrasted presentation claims with his limited knowledge and demonstration experience, and described Holmes's role in military planning, resource allocation, and decision-making alongside Ramesh Balwani.

Highlights (1)

Quote“IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH ELIZABETH, THAT THE RESOURCES REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THOSE PROGRAMS WERE DIRECTED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLINICAL LAUNCH WITH WALGREENS AND THE RETAIL LAUNCH.”— Daniel EdlinEdlin attributed the failure to advance military programs to resource allocation for the Walgreens launch, while preserving that this was his understanding from conversations with Holmes.Open in transcript →

Day 22

CrossDaniel Edlin — CrossDaniel EdlinKevin M. Downey3highlights445lines spoken

Summary

Defense counsel used Daniel Edlin's resumed cross-examination to characterize Theranos's military projects as customized evaluations and its demonstrations as varied, labeled processes distinct from clinical testing. Edlin denied deceptive intent but maintained limits on his technical knowledge and confirmed that SOCOM never performed its planned experiment.

Highlights (3)

testimony highlightEdlin testified that the AFRICOM device was customized for expected transportation and heat conditions, successfully underwent high-temperature testing, and was sent with an artificial-results protocol rather than for patient testing. Dr. Givens later reported that it functioned well, although its touchscreen was frustrating.Open in transcript →
admissionEdlin confirmed that Theranos ultimately shipped 4S devices to SOCOM, but SOCOM did not perform the experiment and gave him no explanation.Open in transcript →
Quote“I REALLY DIDN'T RECEIVE COMMUNICATION BACK FROM THE INDIVIDUALS WHO DID THE DEMO REGARDING THEIR TEST RESULTS.”— Daniel EdlinThis qualification limited the defense suggestion that many demonstration recipients reported comparable outside results.Open in transcript →
CrossDaniel Edlin — Cross (Resumed)Daniel EdlinKevin M. Downey1highlight293lines spoken

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.

Highlights (1)

Quote“I'M NOT THE EXPERT HERE, BUT JUST BY READING THE DESCRIPTION HERE, IT SAYS THAT THERANOS RAPIDLY PROCESSES SAMPLES AND ALLOWS FOR ANALYSIS OF KEY MARKERS BEFORE THEIR ANALYTE DECAY RATES AFFECT RESULT INTEGRITY. I BELIEVE IT REFERS TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT PASSED BETWEEN WHEN A SAMPLE IS COLLECTED AND WHEN IT'S TESTED.”— Daniel EdlinThe answer preserved Edlin's limitation on technical expertise while recording his understanding of a claim presented to investors.Open in transcript →
RedirectDaniel Edlin — RedirectDaniel EdlinJohn C. Bostic207lines spoken

Summary

Daniel Edlin distinguished Theranos's military evaluations and artificial scenarios from clinical deployment, confirmed that demonstration software hid errors and that results were selectively reported, and connected Holmes to technology information and final review of external materials. He said repeated failures to demonstrate the technology contributed to his departure.

ProceduralEnd-of-Day Jury AdmonitionMentioned

Summary

The court admonished and recessed the jury until Friday, addressed the next witnesses and schedule, and continued measures to limit distracting keyboard noise.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 24

ProceduralHearing on Peterson Video EvidenceMentioned

Summary

The court permitted selected government excerpts from Holmes's Mad Money and Today Show interviews, rejected the defense's broad state-of-mind rationale, and indicated that Peterson's reaction to the later AACC presentation was not relevant.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 26

sidebarSidebar on Admissibility of Exhibit 2065Mentioned

Summary

The court sustained the defense objection to admitting Exhibit 2065 through Lisa Peterson at that time, citing timing and foundation while leaving broader evidentiary questions unresolved.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 33

Day 35

Day 36

ProceduralMotion to Exclude Fabrizio Bonanni Testimony and Late DisclosuresMentioned

Summary

The government sought to exclude Fabrizio Bonanni's proposed testimony based on relevance and late disclosures. The defense argued that his knowledge of Minilab capabilities and Holmes's later conduct bore on intent. The court raised foundation, hearsay, discovery, and scheduling concerns but issued no exclusion ruling.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

ProceduralRule 29 Motion and Evidentiary Record MattersMentioned

Summary

The defense renewed challenges to the CMS report, Erin Tompkins's HIV-result evidence, and evidence affected by the unavailable LIS database. Holmes also made a Rule 29 motion, which the court took under submission, and the court limited the defense's patent summary to applications filed through 2016 before the defense called Trent Middleton.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 39

ProceduralHearing on Admission of Sunny Balwani’s Prior TestimonyMentioned

Summary

The defense sought to admit selected SEC deposition testimony from Ramesh Balwani under two Rule 804 exceptions. The government opposed admission, and the court probed unavailability, self-inculpatory character, corroboration, SEC-DOJ alignment, completeness, and the lack of prosecution cross-examination without announcing a ruling.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 43

ProceduralExhibit Admissibility ProceedingsMentioned

Summary

The court admitted limited portions of two defense exhibits solely for Holmes's state of mind, kept the remaining customer-feedback material out, and then marked the close of evidence after the defense rested and the government declined rebuttal.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 44

Day 47