Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
personpersonDaniel MosleyDaniel MosleyAttorney and private investor who invested in Theranos and introduced Holmes to other investors.← All People
Witness

Daniel Mosley

Attorney and private investor who invested in Theranos and introduced Holmes to other investors.

AppearedFederal Criminal Trial
1,456 lines·20 proceedings·13 mentions

About

Daniel Mosley testified for the prosecution about the review and investment process that followed Henry Kissinger's request that he examine Theranos. Mosley said he received extensive materials, spoke with Elizabeth Holmes, prepared a preliminary memorandum, and invested just under $6 million. He described believing that Theranos offered broad, fast, and accurate testing from finger-stick samples using proprietary devices, with validation associated with pharmaceutical companies, Johns Hopkins, Pfizer, and Walgreens.

Defense counsel examined the sources and limits of Mosley's understanding. Mosley acknowledged unresolved questions, increasingly uncertain long-range projections, warnings that the investment was highly speculative, the possibility of complete loss, and limited means to conduct significant independent research. He also described negotiating redemption protection and understanding that much of Theranos's national expansion remained prospective, while maintaining that investment and rollout risks differed from receiving inaccurate information.

Cross-examination also tested Mosley's recollection, regulatory understanding, investor introductions, and technical knowledge. Confronted with prior sworn testimony describing FDA approval and a CLIA waiver as a condition, he acknowledged the quoted answer but maintained that he understood FDA approval was not required and that Holmes had presented it as a standard Theranos intended to pursue. He qualified reported investment amounts as matters not necessarily within his personal knowledge and declined to adopt technical premises beyond his expertise.

On redirect, Mosley distinguished Theranos's future ambitions from capabilities he believed already existed. He principally attributed his beliefs about broad and accurate testing, finger-stick collection, Theranos devices, Walgreens, revenue, and the Pfizer report to Holmes's materials and his conversations with her. He said his assessment would have changed had he known that conclusions he attributed to Pfizer were Theranos's own, and he characterized recommendation language in an email to prospective investors as loose wording while noting that those clients conducted their own evaluations.

Trial Record (20)

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

Daniel Mosley testified about the Theranos materials, conversations, risk analysis, and negotiated protections that preceded his investment of just under $6 million. Cross-examination tested his diligence, recollection, regulatory understanding, and investor introductions, while redirect clarified which asserted capabilities he attributed to Holmes and her materials.

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 24

Day 26

ProceduralHearing on Daniel Mosley Evidence1highlightMentioned

Summary

The court deferred a decision on using Daniel Mosley's 2015 emails during cross-examination and scheduled the motion concerning witness BB for the next morning.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (1)

evidence eventThe defense identified Exhibit 4380 as potentially contradicting testimony about financial projections, while the court questioned its relevance and deferred consideration until a break before Mosley's testimony.Open in transcript →
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.

DirectDaniel Mosley — DirectDaniel MosleyJeff Schenk5highlights433lines spoken

Summary

Mosley described the Theranos materials, claimed outside validation, projections, and risk assumptions that led him to invest just under $6 million.

Highlights (5)

evidence eventThe court admitted Exhibit 3387, the extensive Theranos materials Mosley said he reviewed as part of his investment analysis.Open in transcript →
Quote“I WOULD REGARD IT AS AN ENDORSEMENT THAT THEY HAD CONFIDENCE IN THE TECHNOLOGY.”— Daniel MosleyMosley explained why Theranos's claimed relationships with sophisticated pharmaceutical companies affected his assessment of its technology.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightMosley explained that he believed Pfizer authored a report bearing Pfizer and Theranos logos because its conclusions appeared to be third-party assessments of Theranos technology.Open in transcript →
Quote“IT WAS A JUDGMENT THAT THEY WERE BASED ON A -- THAT IF NUMBERS WERE -- I WOULD EXPECT PROJECTIONS TO BE ARRIVED AT IN GOOD FAITH, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY WOULD BE BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WAS AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME AND A REASONABLE AND FAIR JUDGMENT OF WHAT THAT PORTRAYED FOR THE FUTURE.”— Daniel MosleyMosley defined the good-faith assumption he applied to Theranos's financial projections while acknowledging that projections were not final results.Open in transcript →
Show all 5 highlights
testimony highlightUsing his contemporaneous memorandum, Mosley described the claimed external validation underlying his favorable view and testified that learning the quoted conclusions were Theranos's rather than Pfizer's would have changed his opinion.Open in transcript →

Day 27

CrossDaniel Mosley — CrossDaniel MosleyLance A. Wade2highlights420lines spoken

Summary

Mosley described how Theranos materials, outside relationships, future plans, known risks, and negotiated investor protections shaped his preliminary analysis and investment decision.

Highlights (2)

testimony highlightMosley said the Walgreens relationship was important to his investment analysis because he expected Walgreens to conduct extensive due diligence, while noting that he had not seen the Walgreens contract.Open in transcript →
Quote“WELL, I OBVIOUSLY READ THE JOHNS HOPKINS REPORT WHICH TALKED ABOUT WALGREENS, AND IT SEEMS TO BE COMMISSIONED BY WALGREENS, AND CERTAINLY THE JOHNS HOPKINS REPORT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS BOTH COVERED IN THIS OUTLINE AND WAS IMPORTANT.”— Daniel MosleyThe testimony explains why an apparent outside assessment and the Walgreens relationship mattered to Mosley's analysis.Open in transcript →
CrossDaniel Mosley — Cross (Resumed)Daniel MosleyLance A. Wade6highlights406lines spoken

Summary

Mosley described investor introductions, continuing diligence, outside validation, and rollout risk while defense counsel tested his regulatory recollection and documented the path to several proposed investments.

Highlights (6)

impeachmentDefense counsel confronted Mosley with prior sworn testimony that he understood FDA approval and a CLIA waiver to be a condition, while Mosley maintained that his contemporaneous understanding was that FDA approval was not required and was instead pursued as the gold standard.Open in transcript →
Quote“MY UNDERSTANDING, I BELIEVE AT ALL TIMES, WAS THAT FDA APPROVAL WASN'T NEEDED, AND I HAD A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS WITH ELIZABETH WHO SAID, WE INTEND TO GET FDA APPROVAL BECAUSE THAT IS THE GOLD STANDARD.”— Daniel MosleyMosley maintained his understanding of the regulatory posture even when confronted with different wording from his prior deposition.Open in transcript →
evidence eventAn admitted post-meeting email showed a proposed $25 million personal investment by Andreas Dracopoulos, an agreement for a $100 million investment associated with Jerry Tubergen, possible later Walton participation, and Mosley's own hope to invest $6 million.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightMosley explained that he sought redemption protection personally but wanted any comparable benefit to extend to clients who might also invest; admitted emails also recorded his stated trust in Holmes and reference to recommending an investment by clients.Open in transcript →
Show all 6 highlights
testimony highlightMosley testified that David Boies told him before his investment that Theranos's technology was sound and performing well, while identifying large-scale rollout as the principal risk; Mosley said his practice would have been to relay relevant information to clients.Open in transcript →
Quote“TO BE MORE PRECISE, HE SAID THAT HE THOUGHT THE TECHNOLOGY WAS ABSOLUTELY SOUND AND WAS PERFORMING WELL, BUT THERE WOULD ALWAYS BE A QUESTION OF WHETHER IT WOULD PERFORM AT THE SAME LEVEL WHEN IT WAS COMPLETELY ROLLED OUT IN MULTIPLE -- MANY, MANY LOCATIONS.”— Daniel MosleyMosley distinguished the favorable technology assessment he attributed to David Boies from the identified risk of performance at scale.Open in transcript →
RedirectDaniel Mosley — RedirectDaniel MosleyJeff Schenk4highlights38lines spoken

Summary

Mosley said he understood several Theranos claims as current capabilities, not future vision, and denied encouraging the sophisticated clients he introduced to invest.

Highlights (4)

Quote“I BELIEVE THEY WERE USING THE FINGERSTICK, WHICH DID NOT REQUIRE VIALS OF BLOOD. IT REQUIRED A VERY SMALL SAMPLE.”— Daniel MosleyMosley described finger-stick collection with a small sample as an existing Theranos capability he believed before investing.Open in transcript →
Quote“I READ THAT REPORT AS A STUDY, A REPORT AND A STUDY THAT HAD ALREADY OCCURRED.”— Daniel MosleyMosley distinguished the Pfizer-related material from a future goal and treated it as a completed study.Open in transcript →
Quote“I THINK IT WAS JUST LOOSE LANGUAGE. I MEAN, I THINK IT WAS REFERRING TO THE CLIENTS I HAD INTRODUCED TO ELIZABETH OR WHO HAD BEEN, YOU KNOW, REALLY THE CLIENTS THAT I HAD INTRODUCED TO ELIZABETH.”— Daniel MosleyMosley explained the email's reference to recommendations as imprecise wording about introductions rather than investment encouragement.Open in transcript →
Quote“NO, I DIDN'T. THESE ARE HIGHLY SOPHISTICATED PARTIES WITH LARGE INVESTMENT STAFFS IN ALMOST EVERY CASE -- I'M SORRY. THESE WERE SOPHISTICATED CLIENTS THAT HAD SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT STAFFS THAT THEY USED TO VET INVESTMENTS.”— Daniel MosleyMosley denied encouraging the introduced parties to invest and emphasized their independent investment staffs.Open in transcript →

Day 36

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 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 42

RedirectElizabeth A. Holmes — RedirectElizabeth A. HolmesKevin M. DowneyMentioned

Summary

Holmes used redirect to explain Theranos's laboratory oversight, modified analyzers, financial projections, partner reports, trade-secret restrictions, and responses to Tyler Shultz. She attributed operational and technical work to others while acknowledging authority over investor presentations and explaining nondisclosure of modified systems as trade-secret protection.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 46

ClosingClosing Argument by the ProsecutionJeff SchenkMentioned

Summary

The prosecution argued that Holmes knowingly deceived investors and patients, linked the documentary and testimonial record to the conspiracy and wire-fraud elements, rebutted the principal defense themes, and requested guilty verdicts on all remaining counts.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 47