Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
personpersonEdward J. DavilaEdward J. DavilaUnited States district judge for the Northern District of California who presided over the Holmes trial.← All People
JudgeU.S. District Court, Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila

United States district judge for the Northern District of California who presided over the Holmes trial.

AppearedFederal Criminal Trial
8,500 lines·329 proceedings

About

Judge Edward J. Davila presided from jury selection through the return of verdicts. After the panel was selected, he seated and swore 12 jurors and five alternates, then instructed them on the conspiracy and wire-fraud charges, the government's burden, the treatment of evidence, credibility, and juror conduct.

During the presentation of evidence, Judge Davila managed juror service and courtroom conditions as well as disputes between the parties. He excused Juror No. 5 for good cause after learning that the juror had worked on Sudoku puzzles during testimony and seated Alternate Juror No. 3; he also required safeguards against disclosure of names and health information in admitted and published exhibits.

His evidentiary rulings addressed the purpose and scope for which exhibits could be used. He admitted Exhibit 551 in full as material and inextricably intertwined with the alleged plan rather than Rule 404(b) evidence, admitted a text-message exhibit under Rule 106 while preserving objections to particular portions, and separately found Ramesh Balwani unavailable, excluded one cumulative deposition excerpt, and indicated that limited portions of others might be admitted.

After evidence closed, Judge Davila led conferences on conspiracy, wire fraud, good faith, derivative liability, and regulatory evidence. The government withdrew its request for a pure-omissions wire-fraud instruction, and the court directed jurors to consider the CMS report only for Holmes's state of mind, not for the truth of its assertions.

On Day 51, after jurors reported an impasse on three counts, Judge Davila gave a modified Allen charge, repeated the presumption-of-innocence and reasonable-doubt instructions, and later confirmed that further deliberations were unlikely to produce unanimity. The jury returned four guilty verdicts on investor-related counts, four not-guilty verdicts on patient-related counts, and no verdict on three counts. Judge Davila oversaw publication and polling, discharged the jury, declared a mistrial on the three unresolved counts, preserved the defense's Rule 29 issue, and deferred further motion and scheduling matters.

Trial Record (329)

FederalFederal Criminal TrialAug 31, 2021 – Jan 3, 2022

Judge Edward J. Davila presided over jury selection, evidentiary disputes, juror management, final instructions, and deliberations in Holmes's trial. On Day 51, he oversaw publication and polling of the jury's mixed verdicts, then declared a mistrial on the three counts the jury could not resolve.

Jury Selection Day 1

Voir DireCourt-Led Voir Dire of Panel One120lines spoken

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.

Voir DirePanel One Voir Dire Resumes351lines spoken

Summary

The court examined Panel One's media exposure and impartiality, excused two prospective jurors who doubted they could remain unbiased and two for financial hardship, and continued screening for sensitive experiences and acceptance of core criminal-trial principles.

Voir DireGovernment Voir Dire of Panel One4lines spoken

Summary

The government screened Panel One for bias toward medical witnesses, ability to avoid case publicity, and concerns arising from experiences with interpersonal abuse or domestic violence; Mr. Lee requested private follow-up.

Voir DireDefense Voir Dire of Panel One46lines spoken

Summary

Defense voir dire examined prospective jurors' media exposure, preexisting views, understanding of the government's burden and the defense's lack of an obligation to present evidence, language comprehension, and personal hardships. Several jurors candidly disclosed biases or negative impressions, while others said they could remain fair or follow the court's instructions.

Jury Selection Day 2

Jury Selection Day 3

Day 4

OpeningOpening Statement by the ProsecutionRobert S. Leach4lines spoken

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.

Day 5

Day 6

ProceduralJuror No. 12 Disclosure Inquiry58lines spoken

Summary

Juror No. 12 denied receiving case information from an indirect media contact or through KPMG connections and affirmed impartiality after the court clarified that the jury would not consider sentencing or punishment.

Day 7

CrossErika Cheung — CrossErika CheungLance A. Wade23lines spoken

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.

Day 8

CrossErika Cheung — CrossErika CheungLance A. Wade20lines spoken

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.

Day 9

ProceduralEvidentiary Hearing42lines spoken

Summary

The court set an initial protocol for displaying selected Holmes-Balwani messages, confirmed limits on customer-impact testimony, and addressed corrected test reports without deciding all message-specific objections.

Day 10

Day 11

Day 12

Day 13

CrossAdam Rosendorff — CrossAdam RosendorffLance A. Wade34lines spoken

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.

Day 14

CrossAdam Rosendorff — CrossAdam RosendorffLance A. Wade41lines spoken

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.

Day 15

Day 16

ProceduralSafeway Renovation-Expense Evidence Hearing19lines spoken

Summary

Defense counsel sought to exclude proposed testimony about Safeway's store-renovation spending, while prosecutors argued that the spending showed materiality; the court explored omitting the exact figure but did not rule in this excerpt. The court also prepared to question a juror concerned about continued service and confirmed that Alternate Juror 3 could remain.

ProceduralLaboratory-Comparison Testimony Evidence Hearing45lines spoken

Summary

The court struck Dr. Adam Rosendorff's comparison of Theranos with other laboratories and ordered the jury to disregard the question and answer. It rejected the defense's request to explore specific problems at his former laboratories, citing Rule 403 and the danger of collateral mini-trials.

DirectSteven Burd — DirectSteven BurdRobert S. Leach23lines spoken

Summary

Former Safeway CEO Steven Burd testified that Holmes's representations about a fast, comprehensive mini-lab drove a strategic retail agreement, substantial payments, and convertible-note purchases. He also described a failed board demonstration, repeated rollout delays, and Safeway's unmet expectation that Theranos's own technology was operating and validated.

Day 17

CrossSteven Burd — CrossSteven BurdKevin M. Downey39lines spoken

Summary

Defense counsel used Safeway's extensive due diligence, commercial incentives, and contractual safeguards to challenge the nature of its reliance on Theranos. Burd agreed that Safeway understood significant startup and regulatory risks but maintained that key analyzer capabilities were never validated and that no technology problem with the device was disclosed to him.

RedirectSteven Burd — RedirectSteven BurdRobert S. Leach8lines spoken

Summary

Steven Burd reaffirmed Safeway's reliance on representations about Theranos's maturity, finances, device capabilities, and regulatory progress. He said no Walgreens, laboratory, or device problem was given to him as the reason for the December 2012 delays and clarified that Safeway's $275 million figure concerned store remodeling, not payment to Theranos.

Day 18

Day 19

DirectNimesh Jhaveri — DirectNimesh JhaveriJeff Schenk21lines spoken

Summary

Nimesh Jhaveri described Walgreens's expansion conditions concerning fingerstick use and other pilot metrics, unmet venous-draw projections, and requests for financial and technology transparency. Admitted messages between Holmes and Balwani, read during the examination, addressed a nanotainer change not disclosed to Walgreens for three to four weeks and how to present it.

Day 20

ProceduralExhibit 1496 Admissibility Hearing13lines spoken

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.

Day 21

DirectDaniel Edlin — DirectDaniel EdlinJohn C. Bostic23lines 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.

Day 22

CrossDaniel Edlin — CrossDaniel EdlinKevin M. Downey28lines 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.

CrossDaniel Edlin — Cross (Resumed)Daniel EdlinKevin M. Downey38lines 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.

RedirectDaniel Edlin — RedirectDaniel EdlinJohn C. Bostic15lines 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.

Day 23

ProceduralEvidentiary Conference on Tolbert Exhibits14lines spoken

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.

ProceduralIn-Chambers Inquiry and Substitution of Juror No. 51highlight55lines spoken

Summary

Judge Davila excused Juror No. 5 after an in-chambers inquiry into the juror's use of Sudoku during testimony and seated Alternate Juror No. 3 as the replacement.

Highlights (1)

jury eventJudge Davila questioned Juror No. 5 about doing Sudoku during testimony. The juror said the activity occurred intermittently over seven to ten days, usually for minutes, maintained that no testimony or evidence had been missed, and agreed to stop.Open in transcript →

Day 24

ProceduralHearing on Peterson Video Evidence54lines spoken

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.

ProceduralHearing on Peterson Materiality Foundation40lines spoken

Summary

The court treated challenges to Lisa Peterson's knowledge of RDV's investment decision as primarily matters of weight, while the defense preserved its foundation objection and the government clarified Peterson's limited role in authenticating two later interview videos.

Day 25

Day 26

Day 27

Day 28

colloquyCMS Report and Voided-Test Evidence Colloquy31lines spoken

Summary

The parties disputed the admissibility and scope of the CMS report and Kingshuk Das's anticipated voided-test testimony. The court ordered a written prosecution proffer by midday Monday and scheduled argument for Tuesday morning without deciding admissibility.

Day 29

Day 30

Day 31

ProceduralLIS Evidence and Door-Opening Hearing23lines spoken

Summary

The parties debated whether a possible missing-LIS argument would open the door to evidence about the system's unavailability, and the defense agreed to provide limited notice by the next afternoon. The government also announced a limited recall of Danise Yam concerning an email.

Day 32

CrossAlan Eisenman — CrossAlan EisenmanKevin M. Downey70lines spoken

Summary

Defense counsel used investor emails, prior statements, and Eisenman's communications with prosecutors during his ongoing testimony to challenge his recollection and credibility. Eisenman maintained that Theranos withheld information and that Balwani encouraged his 2013 investment, while acknowledging limits on his information rights and an email to the prosecution after a no-contact instruction.

CrossAlan Eisenman — Cross (Resumed)Alan EisenmanKevin M. Downey21lines spoken

Summary

Defense counsel confronted Alan Eisenman with written risk warnings, investment agreements, possible share-sale opportunities, and his contacts with the prosecution. Eisenman acknowledged the documents and market inquiries but maintained that the warnings conflicted with earlier representations, that proposed company offers were not completed, and that he lacked adequate financial information to decide whether to sell.

Day 33

ProceduralLIS Evidence and Trial-Management Hearing19lines spoken

Summary

The court heard competing positions on whether LIS cross-examination had opened the door to broader government evidence and whether the defense could later argue that missing LIS data reflected a failure of proof. The defense declined to limit its arguments, and the court issued no new ruling.

Day 34

CrossBrian Grossman — CrossBrian GrossmanLance A. Wade80lines spoken

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.

Day 35

CrossMark Burnes — CrossMark BurnesKatherine Trefz17lines spoken

Summary

Burnes acknowledged Theranos's early appeal, limited his reported use of its testing, and said he knew of no earlier Theranos problem besides Ellsworth's PSA result. He accepted that laboratory errors and method differences occur but characterized significant PSA errors as rare and expected ordinary variation to be small.

Day 36

ProceduralRule 29 Motion and Evidentiary Record Matters93lines spoken

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.

Day 37

ProceduralRule 16 Disclosure Dispute7lines spoken

Summary

The parties disputed the timing of six defense exhibit disclosures, with no exclusion motion or corrective ruling, before the court warned attendees that keyboard noise was distracting the jury.

Day 38

Day 39

ProceduralHearing on Admission of Sunny Balwani’s Prior Testimony93lines spoken

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.

Day 40

CrossElizabeth A. Holmes — CrossElizabeth A. HolmesRobert S. Leach76lines spoken

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.

Day 41

Day 42

CrossElizabeth A. Holmes — CrossElizabeth A. HolmesRobert S. Leach60lines spoken

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.

Day 43

ProceduralExhibit Admissibility Proceedings45lines spoken

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.

ProceduralRenewed Rule 29 Motion Hearing25lines spoken

Summary

Holmes renewed her Rule 29 motion, which remained preserved and reserved. The court set the jury-instruction schedule and accepted briefing on the government's proposed motion to strike portions of Holmes's testimony.

Day 44

Day 45

Day 46

Jury InstructionJury Limiting Instruction on Exhibit 46211highlight4lines spoken

Summary

Judge Davila instructed jurors to consider Exhibit 4621 only for Holmes's state of mind, not for the truth of the CMS report's assertions.

Highlights (1)

jury eventBefore closing arguments, Judge Davila instructed jurors that Exhibit 4621 could be considered solely for Holmes's state of mind, not for the truth of the CMS report's assertions. He noted that he had not given the instruction when evidence closed.Open in transcript →

Day 47

Day 48

Day 49

Day 51

Jury InstructionModified Allen Charge and Reasonable-Doubt Instruction1highlight4lines spoken

Summary

Judge Davila gave a modified Allen charge after the jury reported an impasse on three counts, then renewed the presumption-of-innocence and reasonable-doubt instructions.

Highlights (1)

jury eventAfter the jury reported that it could not reach a unanimous verdict on three counts, Judge Davila delivered a modified Allen charge directing continued deliberations while emphasizing independent judgment and forbidding jurors from abandoning honest beliefs merely to return a verdict.Open in transcript →
ProceduralSeated-Jury Deadlock Inquiry1highlight4lines spoken

Summary

The jury confirmed that it remained deadlocked on three charges and saw no reasonable probability that further deliberations would produce unanimity; the court directed it to complete the verdict form if appropriate.

Highlights (1)

jury eventJudge Davila read Jury Note No. 4, confirmed through the foreperson and the full jury that agreement had not been reached on one or more counts, and received no indication that further deliberations had a reasonable probability of producing unanimity.Open in transcript →