Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
personpersonDaniel YoungDaniel YoungFormer Theranos vice president who oversaw research, development, and scientific teams.← All People
MentionedTheranos

Daniel Young

Former Theranos vice president who oversaw research, development, and scientific teams.

MentionedFederal Criminal Trial
40 proceedings·40 mentions

About

Daniel Young served as a Theranos vice president overseeing research and development, scientists, and the integration of new tests into the clinical laboratory. Erika Cheung testified that she raised frequent quality-control failures with him and disputed his assessment that a vitamin D procedure had been followed. Adam Rosendorff described warning Young about validation problems, inconsistent results, and concerns involving patient testing.

Testimony and records also connected Young to the development and communication of an alternative-assessment process and to the technical review of customized technology demonstrations. Daniel Edlin identified him as one of the final decision-makers concerning which demonstration results were reported. Elizabeth Holmes testified that she relied on technical leaders for scientific decisions and asked Young to investigate Tyler Shultz's laboratory concerns.

Trial Record (40)

FederalFederal Criminal TrialAug 31, 2021 – Jan 3, 2022

Daniel Young served as a Theranos vice president whose trial-record activity included research oversight, clinical-test integration, laboratory quality concerns, alternative assessment, and review of technology-demonstration results.

Day 4

OpeningOpening Statement by the ProsecutionRobert S. LeachMentioned

Summary

The prosecution alleged that Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh Balwani defrauded Theranos investors and patients through misrepresentations about the company's technology, partnerships, finances, retail rollout, and test accuracy. It previewed insiders, investors, patients, outside organizations, and records that it expected would support the wire-fraud and conspiracy charges.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 6

Day 7

CrossErika Cheung — CrossErika CheungLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel emphasized Theranos's trained laboratory teams, formal validation reports, multiple approvals, and written operating procedures while narrowing Cheung's personal expertise. Cheung agreed that QC preceded patient testing but maintained that validation was sometimes compressed, written procedures differed from practice, and frequent reader failures required extensive recalibration.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 8

CrossErika Cheung — CrossErika CheungLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel used laboratory procedures, email chains, workflow improvements, and a sample-volume patent to emphasize Theranos's monitoring and remediation systems and to narrow Cheung's expertise. Cheung nevertheless maintained that the vitamin D SOP was not followed, confirmed that hepatitis C was not run on Edison after her concerns, and described Edison as a one-patient, one-test device.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 9

CrossSurekha Gangakhedkar — CrossSurekha GangakhedkarLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Gangakhedkar acknowledged extensive successful assay development, regular updates to Holmes, and formal CLIA-validation planning, while maintaining that R&D reports were not CLIA validation and that detailed information sharing remained limited. She also described team frustration with Balwani's pressure shortly before her resignation.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 11

Day 12

CrossAdam Rosendorff — CrossAdam RosendorffLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel challenged Adam Rosendorff with his government-interview history, prior testimony, and laboratory records while examining his CLIA responsibility, management constraints, the restricted September 2013 launch, assay validation, and Theranos's quality and reporting systems.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 13

CrossAdam Rosendorff — CrossAdam RosendorffLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel challenged Adam Rosendorff with inspection records, compliance emails, signed Edison validation reports, quality-system data, and proficiency-testing records. Rosendorff acknowledged inspection cooperation, assay approvals, and predicate-device proficiency testing while maintaining that later Edison performance, incident management, and alternative testing remained deficient.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 14

CrossAdam Rosendorff — CrossAdam RosendorffLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel challenged Adam Rosendorff with AAP policies, laboratory emails, physician-call records, and meeting calendars. Rosendorff accepted substantial laboratory-director responsibility but maintained that proficiency-testing implementation and data access were incomplete and that management sometimes exceeded its qualifications.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 15

Day 16

RecrossAdam Rosendorff — RecrossAdam RosendorffLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel used emails and prior testimony to challenge Adam Rosendorff on laboratory authority, HCG implementation, launch scope, and complaint frequency. Rosendorff made several concessions but preserved qualifications about operational control, quality-control failures, and limited recollection.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 19

Day 20

DirectDaniel Edlin — DirectDaniel EdlinJohn C. BosticMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 21

DirectDaniel Edlin — DirectDaniel EdlinJohn C. BosticMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossDaniel Edlin — CrossDaniel EdlinKevin M. DowneyMentioned

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.

Day 22

CrossDaniel Edlin — CrossDaniel EdlinKevin M. DowneyMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

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.

RedirectDaniel Edlin — RedirectDaniel EdlinJohn C. BosticMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 30

CrossLynette Sawyer — CrossLynette SawyerLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Lynette Sawyer agreed that her Theranos co-director role was limited and off-site, while emphasizing gaps in her knowledge of the company's LIS, nanotainers, and proprietary testing. Admitted emails documented her decision not to renew, her extension through June, and her formal departure.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 31

Day 35

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 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.

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

Summary

Holmes described Theranos's military projects, demonstrations, laboratory oversight, and regulatory history before giving emotional testimony alleging coercion and sexual abuse by Ramesh Balwani. She denied that Balwani forced her investor or press statements, addressed the 2015 CMS failures and later remediation, and said she never sold her Theranos shares.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 40

CrossElizabeth A. Holmes — CrossElizabeth A. HolmesRobert S. LeachMentioned

Summary

Holmes's cross-examination covered Theranos's response to critical reporting and whistleblowers, her control of the company, limits on Theranos devices, and Balwani's influence. She acknowledged major mistakes in the Wall Street Journal response, extensive reliance on commercial equipment, and problems with pharmaceutical-branded reports while disputing retaliation and several prosecutorial characterizations.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 42

CrossElizabeth A. Holmes — CrossElizabeth A. HolmesRobert S. LeachMentioned

Summary

Holmes acknowledged that Theranos devices were not clinically deployed with the military, that the company used third-party analyzers, and that key disclosures to investors, Walgreens, and Roger Parloff omitted or misstated aspects of actual laboratory operations. The prosecution also confronted her with divergent revenue projections, laboratory warnings, prototype limitations, special investor-visit workflows, and her knowledge of the troubled 2015 CMS inspection.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

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 43

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

Summary

Holmes used redirect to explain Walgreens communications, technical and laboratory advice, statements to Roger Parloff, and Balwani's management role. She maintained that experts informed her technology claims, denied intending to mislead investors or patients, and acknowledged ultimate responsibility while saying she did not know every event or decision at Theranos.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 46

Day 47