Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
personpersonErin TompkinsErin TompkinsFormer Theranos patient who received a reactive HIV screening result and later tested negative.← All People
Witness

Erin Tompkins

Former Theranos patient who received a reactive HIV screening result and later tested negative.

AppearedFederal Criminal Trial
152 lines·12 proceedings·9 mentions

About

Erin Tompkins testified for the government about choosing Theranos while uninsured because she believed it offered lower-cost testing from a small fingerstick sample. She said accuracy remained her highest priority.

Tompkins identified a May 2015 report showing a reactive combined HIV antibody screen, nonreactive or undetected components, and a laboratory note stating that there was no laboratory evidence of HIV-1 infection. She testified that she had never been diagnosed with, treated for, or experienced symptoms of HIV or AIDS. She said she contacted Theranos within about a day for an explanation but was not transferred to laboratory personnel and did not recall receiving a return call. She also described a negative screening within three months and identified an August 2021 test reporting that no HIV antigen or antibody was detected.

On cross-examination, Tompkins confirmed that cost influenced her decision and that she later received a refund. She said she independently sought the 2021 test, with a government agent helping only to locate a nearby site, and noted that it used a cheek swab rather than the venous draw used for her Theranos test. An email refreshed her recollection that a second Theranos conversation occurred, but she could not identify the participant or recall its substance. She also said she could not interpret the testing algorithm or explain the differing combined and component results.

Trial Record (12)

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

Erin Tompkins testified for the government about choosing Theranos, receiving an HIV report with a reactive combined screen and nonreactive components, seeking clarification, and later receiving negative results. Cross-examination examined her follow-up contacts, refreshed recollection, and inability to interpret the medical testing sequence.

Day 34

DirectErin Tompkins — DirectErin TompkinsJohn C. Bostic7highlights75lines spoken

Summary

Tompkins described choosing Theranos for its perceived fingerstick technology and lower cost, receiving a reactive HIV screening result, failing to obtain a laboratory explanation, and later testing negative.

Highlights (7)

testimony highlightTompkins explained that she expected Theranos to use a tiny fingerstick sample, chose the company partly for its lower price, and considered accuracy the most important factor in medical testing.Open in transcript →
Quote“MY PERCEPTION WAS THAT THE NATURE OF A BLOOD DRAW REQUIRED NOT EVEN AN ENTIRE VIAL, JUST A TINY LITTLE CAPSULE'S WORTH OF BLOOD, IT COULD BE LIKE A PIN PRICK, AND THAT ANALYSIS WOULD THEN GIVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF INFORMATION AS IF YOU HAD AN ENTIRE VIAL OF BLOOD DRAWN.”— Erin TompkinsCaptures the technological understanding that made Theranos's service appealing to Tompkins.Open in transcript →
Quote“WELL, I THINK ACCURACY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ANY TIME YOU'RE HAVING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE, BUT COST WAS A VERY, VERY CLOSE SECOND FOR ME AT THE TIME.”— Erin TompkinsStates the relative importance of accuracy and price in Tompkins's choice of laboratory.Open in transcript →
evidence eventThe court admitted and permitted publication of Exhibit 5483, the redacted Theranos report containing Tompkins's 2015 test results.Open in transcript →
Show all 7 highlights
emotional momentTompkins testified that she promptly called Theranos seeking an explanation from someone familiar with the laboratory equipment, but a customer-service representative would not transfer her; she recalled being quite emotional and did not recall receiving a return call.Open in transcript →
Quote“I DON'T RECALL IF I ATTEMPTED TO CALL THEM BACK AGAIN, BUT I WAS QUITE EMOTIONAL AT THE TIME.”— Erin TompkinsProvides direct testimony about Tompkins's emotional response while preserving her qualification about later contact attempts.Open in transcript →
evidence eventThe court admitted Exhibit 5484 and permitted its publication with Tompkins's date of birth redacted.Open in transcript →
CrossErin Tompkins — CrossErin TompkinsKatherine Trefz2highlights9lines spoken

Summary

Tompkins recalled Theranos's lower cost and a later refund before an objection halted cross-examination and prompted a dispute over physician statements, scientific foundation, and the meaning of differing HIV test results.

Highlights (2)

objectionThe prosecution objected when the defense asked what Tompkins's physician told her, citing hearsay and possible doctor-patient confidentiality concerns. The court deferred the issue, ended testimony for the day, and excused the jury.Open in transcript →
Quote“SO, YOUR HONOR, THE LACK OF A WITNESS WHO CAN TESTIFY COMPETENTLY TO A SUBJECT DOESN'T MAKE IT OKAY TO EXPLORE THAT SUBJECT WITH A WITNESS WHO IS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY ABOUT IT AND WHO LACKS FOUNDATION.”— John C. BosticThe prosecutor stated the government's central foundation objection to using Tompkins as a source of scientific interpretation if the physician did not testify.Open in transcript →

Day 35

CrossErin Tompkins — CrossErin TompkinsKatherine Trefz4highlights68lines spoken

Summary

Tompkins described differences between her 2015 and 2021 HIV tests, acknowledged a vaguely remembered second Theranos conversation, and said she could not interpret the testing algorithm; the court admitted a CDC algorithm page but limited questions lacking foundation.

Highlights (4)

testimony highlightAfter reviewing an email chain, Tompkins recalled that a second conversation with Theranos occurred but could not recall the individual's name or the conversation's specifics.Open in transcript →
Quote“THE SPECIFICS OF THAT BRIEF CONVERSATION ARE VERY VAGUE TO ME. I'M OBVIOUSLY JUST RECALLING THAT I HAD IT.”— Erin TompkinsThe answer states a central limitation on Tompkins's memory of Theranos's follow-up explanation.Open in transcript →
Quote“NO. THAT WAS PART OF WHAT WAS CONFUSING. THE MORE I LOOKED AT IT, I COULDN'T SEE WHY ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS WOULD BE NEGATIVE, BUT ONE OF THE COMBINATION WOULD BE POSITIVE.”— Erin TompkinsTompkins explained her confusion about the differing components of the Theranos HIV report without claiming medical expertise.Open in transcript →
evidence eventOver objections based on relevance, expert-testimony rules, and authentication, the court admitted and permitted publication of page 7 of Defendant's Exhibit 12692. During the ensuing examination, the court sustained a foundation objection to asking Tompkins whether the algorithm's initial test corresponded to her Theranos result.Open in transcript →

Day 36

ProceduralRule 29 Motion and Evidentiary Record Matters1highlightMentioned

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.

Highlights (1)

objectionThe parties contested whether Erin Tompkins's HIV-related test reports and testimony could remain without testimony from a qualified doctor or expert. The court questioned whether the jury could assess the reports unaided but issued no ruling during the exchange.Open in transcript →

Day 39

ProceduralHearing on Renewed Motion to Admit Exhibit 14259Mentioned

Summary

The defense renewed its request to admit the E.T. test-results email as a business record. The government raised embedded-hearsay and foundation concerns, and the court deferred a ruling while considering redaction and further review.

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

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