Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
personpersonElizabeth A. HolmesElizabeth A. HolmesFounder and former chief executive officer of Theranos and the defendant in this federal criminal trial.← All People
DefendantTheranos

Elizabeth A. Holmes

Founder and former chief executive officer of Theranos and the defendant in this federal criminal trial.

AppearedFederal Criminal Trial
5,945 lines·187 proceedings·176 mentions

About

Elizabeth A. Holmes, Theranos's founder and former chief executive, defended against conspiracy and wire-fraud charges concerning representations to investors and paying patients. Her counsel argued that she believed in the company's mission and technology, lacked an intent to defraud, and made business mistakes rather than committing crimes. The defense acknowledged problems in Theranos's clinical laboratory but attributed her understanding of test reliability to information from Balwani, laboratory directors, and scientific personnel.

Holmes testified from Day 36 through Day 43 in direct, cross, redirect, and recross examination. On direct examination, she described a cartridge problem discovered around a Novartis demonstration, the subsequent redesign of Theranos's analyzer, and research or evaluation work involving pharmaceutical companies, the Department of Defense, and other institutions. She presented those projects as validation or comparison efforts while acknowledging the small size of one study and that some proposed clinical work did not occur.

The prosecution tested her explanations about trade-secret protections, information shared with Walgreens and pharmaceutical companies, and Theranos's current capabilities. Holmes acknowledged that Theranos devices had not been used for clinical military care, that the company used third-party analyzers, and that she had not told PFM or Walgreens about modifications to those machines. On recross, Holmes confirmed that the Walgreens rollout did not expand beyond 41 stores, addressed the timing of a $75 million Walgreens fee, and agreed that investors were entitled to truthful answers about the company's current capabilities. Evidentiary rulings limited several documents to Holmes's state of mind rather than the truth of their contents, while broader customer-feedback reports remained excluded. Those limits defined how the jury could consider documents offered to explain her understanding and intent.

On Day 51, the jury found Holmes guilty of conspiring to commit wire fraud against Theranos investors and of investor wire fraud on Counts 6, 7, and 8. It found her not guilty of conspiring to defraud paying patients and not guilty on Counts 10, 11, and 12, while returning no verdict on Counts 3, 4, and 5. The court then declared a mistrial on those three counts. All 12 jurors individually confirmed the verdicts.

Trial Record (187)

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

Elizabeth A. Holmes testified about Theranos's technology, outside projects, Walgreens rollout, and her understanding of company information while the prosecution challenged her knowledge and intent. On Day 51, the jury convicted her on four investor-related counts, acquitted her on four patient-related counts, and returned no verdict on three counts.

Jury Selection Day 1

Voir DireDefense Voir Dire of Panel OneMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Jury Selection Day 2

Jury Selection Day 3

Day 4

OpeningOpening Statement by the DefenseLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel argued that Holmes genuinely believed in Theranos, characterized the company's collapse as business failure rather than fraud, and previewed technological, customer, and financial evidence it expected would support that account.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Jury InstructionPreliminary Jury InstructionsMentioned

Summary

Judge Davila instructed the jury on the 12 conspiracy and wire-fraud counts, the government's burden, evidence and credibility rules, juror conduct, and the separate status of Ramesh Balwani's case.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

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

ProceduralEmail Exhibit Admissibility HearingMentioned

Summary

Defense challenged Theranos email exhibits on hearsay, foundation, and relevance grounds; the court allowed foundation for Exhibits 1287 and 1289 and deferred the remaining dispute.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 7

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

ProceduralEvidentiary HearingMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 10

DirectJustin Offen — DirectJustin OffenRobert S. LeachMentioned

Summary

Justin Offen explained how PwC preserved Holmes's devices, reconstructed Holmes-Balwani messages, and validated the resulting spreadsheet. The court admitted selected message pages, sometimes only for Holmes's knowledge and notice, before scheduling caused the unfinished examination to be interrupted.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectJustin Offen — DirectJustin OffenRobert S. LeachMentioned

Summary

Justin Offen identified and presented Holmes-Balwani messages concerning laboratory operations, responsibility, and validation concerns. The court admitted redacted Exhibit 5387B and admitted Exhibit 5387A for authentication purposes while preserving message-specific objections.

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

ProceduralSafeway Renovation-Expense Evidence HearingMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

ProceduralLaboratory-Comparison Testimony Evidence HearingMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

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.

DirectSteven Burd — DirectSteven BurdRobert S. LeachMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 17

DirectSteven Burd — DirectSteven BurdRobert S. LeachMentioned

Summary

Steven Burd described extensive Safeway preparations for a Theranos rollout, persistent problems at the on-campus laboratory, repeated unexplained delays, and an unmet pilot condition tied to a proposed $25 million payment. He said no Theranos mini-lab reached a Safeway store during his tenure.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossSteven Burd — CrossSteven BurdKevin M. DowneyMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RedirectSteven Burd — RedirectSteven BurdRobert S. LeachMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 18

Day 19

DirectNimesh Jhaveri — DirectNimesh JhaveriJeff SchenkMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossSunil Dhawan — CrossSunil DhawanLance A. WadeMentioned

Summary

Dhawan testified that he barely interacted with Holmes, assumed rather than knew that Balwani ran the laboratory, and relied on staff to prepare documents correctly; the court also admitted records concerning his regulatory qualifications and Lynette Sawyer's laboratory-director role.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

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. 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.

DirectDaniel Edlin — Direct (Resumed)Daniel EdlinJohn C. BosticMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

ProceduralExhibit 551 Admissibility HearingMentioned

Summary

Judge Davila overruled the defense's objections and admitted Exhibit 551 in full, finding that the record supported materiality and an inextricably intertwined evidentiary theory rather than Rule 404(b).

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectDaniel Edlin — Direct (Resumed)Daniel EdlinJohn C. BosticMentioned

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.

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

ProceduralAdmissibility Hearing on Dr. Weber's Pfizer ReportMentioned

Summary

The defense sought to exclude Dr. Shane Weber's internal Pfizer report as expert material and unfairly prejudicial, while the prosecution argued that it directly rebutted alleged claims of Pfizer validation. The court considered possible redactions but deferred its ruling.

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 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.

CrossShane Weber — CrossShane WeberJohn D. ClineMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel narrowed Weber's Pfizer review to a document-based, business-use assessment, challenged his account of management agreement with a 2020 interview memorandum, and introduced emails showing his contemporaneous communications with Holmes and Gary Frenzel.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

ProceduralHearing on Exhibit 1349 Recording SegmentMentioned

Summary

Judge Davila allowed the defense to play a specified, previously unplayed portion of Exhibit 1349 after hearing objections and arguments concerning hearsay, Rule 106, foundation, relevance, and materiality.

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.

ProceduralHearing on Mad Money Video ClipsMentioned

Summary

The court overruled defense foundation, relevance, and Rule 106 objections, allowed three Mad Money interview clips to be played, and directed that the videos need not be transcribed.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 25

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 27

Day 28

DirectChristopher Lucas — DirectChristopher LucasJohn C. BosticMentioned

Summary

Christopher Lucas testified that BDV invested approximately $5.35 million in Theranos after relying heavily on Holmes, shareholder communications, public coverage, and claims about Theranos's technology. He acknowledged unusually limited transparency but said his relationship with Holmes and Theranos's partnerships increased his confidence.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

colloquyCMS Report and Voided-Test Evidence ColloquyMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 29

Day 30

Day 31

DirectAlan Eisenman — DirectAlan EisenmanJohn C. BosticMentioned

Summary

Early Theranos investor Alan Eisenman described statements he attributed to Holmes about the company's technology, pharmaceutical work, revenue, production, cash flow, and possible liquidity. He also identified his contemporaneous notes and an admitted email chain documenting his later efforts to obtain company information.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossAlan Eisenman — CrossAlan EisenmanKevin M. DowneyMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel challenged Alan Eisenman's recollection with a contemporaneous email, the 2006 stock-purchase agreement, and prior deposition testimony. Eisenman acknowledged substantial private-investment risks and contractual warnings while maintaining that Holmes's representations informed his decision.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 32

CrossAlan Eisenman — CrossAlan EisenmanKevin M. DowneyMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

ProceduralHearing on Alan Eisenman's Testimonial NotesMentioned

Summary

The court retained Alan Eisenman's original notes for color copying and further review after the defense questioned their ink colors and page order; the disputed notes remained outside evidence and the issue was withheld from the jury.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossAlan Eisenman — Cross (Resumed)Alan EisenmanKevin M. DowneyMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RedirectAlan Eisenman — RedirectAlan EisenmanJohn C. BosticMentioned

Summary

Alan Eisenman distinguished speculative projections from claims about Theranos's existing capabilities and explained the information he relied on for his 2013 investment. He also addressed his requests for company information, Balwani's response to the investment, possible stock sales, and his conclusion that the shares were now worth zero.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

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

CrossMark Burnes — CrossMark BurnesKatherine TrefzMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

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.

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.

ProceduralWeekend Jury Admonition and Juror Questionnaire RulingMentioned

Summary

The court kept completed juror questionnaires sealed through trial and ordered later partial unsealing with limited redactions. After the jury left, counsel addressed the government's concern about late defense exhibit disclosures and the defense's request to review the questionnaire order.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 37

ProceduralJury Return and Witness Recall1highlight2lines spoken

Summary

The court confirmed that jurors had not encountered case information over the weekend and recalled Elizabeth Holmes to continue her testimony.

Highlights (1)

procedural actionAfter confirming that no juror reported encountering information about the case over the weekend, the court recalled Elizabeth Holmes to the stand and reminded her that she remained under oath.Open in transcript →
DirectElizabeth A. Holmes — DirectElizabeth A. HolmesKevin M. Downey4highlights334lines spoken

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.

Highlights (4)

Quote“THE WAY WE BUILT THE CARTRIDGES FOR OUR 1 SERIES DEVICE REQUIRED US TO PUT TOGETHER MANY LAYERS OF THE CARTRIDGE. THEY WERE HELD TOGETHER WITH WHAT WAS CALLED AN ADHESIVE, IT'S KIND OF LIKE A GLUE, AND WHEN EXPOSED TO CERTAIN PRESSURE, THOSE LAYERS WOULD LOOSEN, WHICH MEANT THAT IF WE WERE GOING TO BE SHIPPING THESE CARTRIDGES ALL OVER THE PLACE, WE HAD A PROBLEM.”— Elizabeth A. HolmesHolmes acknowledged a concrete engineering failure in the early cartridge design and explained why the company needed a different iteration.Open in transcript →
Quote“THE STUDY SHOWED SOME PRELIMINARY TRENDS INDICATING THAT IF YOU COULD TAKE SAMPLES FREQUENTLY, YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO PREDICT SEPSIS USING THESE KIND OF MARKERS. BUT THERE WAS A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE STUDY, AND MORE STUDIES WERE NEEDED.”— Elizabeth A. HolmesHolmes expressly qualified the Stanford study's sepsis-related findings and identified its small sample and need for further research.Open in transcript →
Quote“YES. IT WAS DIFFERENT FOR EVERY COMPANY THAT WE WORKED WITH, BUT ESSENTIALLY WITH A GIVEN GROUP, WE WOULD TEST THE THERANOS TECHNOLOGY AGAINST SOME STANDARD, AND IF WE WERE ABLE TO SUCCESSFUL HIT THAT STANDARD, THEN WE COULD RUN CLINICAL STUDIES WITH THOSE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES.”— Elizabeth A. HolmesHolmes summarized her understanding of how pharmaceutical-company validation could lead to clinical-study work while noting that the process varied by company.Open in transcript →
Quote“I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE 4 SERIES COULD DO ANY BLOOD TEST.”— Elizabeth A. HolmesThe statement directly identifies Holmes's asserted understanding of the proposed 4 Series technology after the 2010 presentation.Open in transcript →
ProceduralRule 16 Disclosure DisputeMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 38

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 40

CrossElizabeth A. Holmes — CrossElizabeth A. HolmesRobert S. Leach1,461lines 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 42

ProceduralGovernment Motion to Exclude Late-Produced DocumentsMentioned

Summary

The government sought exclusion of late-produced GSK-related documents under Rule 16, while the defense argued that cross-examination had only recently made them relevant; the court expressed fairness and evidentiary concerns but did not rule in the supplied record.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossElizabeth A. Holmes — CrossElizabeth A. HolmesRobert S. Leach1,010lines 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 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.

ProceduralRenewed Rule 29 Motion HearingMentioned

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.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 44

Day 46

ProceduralPre-Argument Evidentiary and Exhibit Procedures2highlightsMentioned

Summary

The court limited Exhibit 4621 to Holmes's state of mind, preserved the defense's request for a written instruction, and set courtroom-only playback for admitted audio and video exhibits.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (2)

rulingThe court confirmed that it would instruct the jury to consider Trial Exhibit 4621 only for Holmes's state of mind and not for the truth of the matters asserted. The defense maintained its request for a written instruction but otherwise accepted the court's proposal subject to that objection.Open in transcript →
Quote“THE COURT WOULD INFORM THE JURY THAT THEY ARE INSTRUCTED THAT TRIAL EXHIBIT 4621, WHICH CONTAINS EXCERPTS OF THE JANUARY 25, 2016 CMS REPORT WAS ADMITTED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF MS. HOLMES'S STATE OF MIND AND NOT FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED.”— Edward J. DavilaThe court stated the precise evidentiary limit it intended to give the jury for Exhibit 4621.Open in transcript →
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

Day 51

ProceduralMistrial Ruling and Post-Verdict Scheduling

Summary

Judge Davila declared a mistrial on Counts Three, Four, and Five, confirmed preservation of the defense's Rule 29 motion, and deferred retrial, motion, probation, and sentencing scheduling to a later status conference.