Jeff Schenk

Jeff Schenk questioned prospective jurors about whether professional credentials, experiences with law enforcement, case publicity, domestic violence, or views about government authority could affect their evaluation of the evidence. During the prosecution case, he then handled a series of examinations focused on the difference between Theranos's representations and what its records and witnesses described.

In questioning Wade Miquelon and Nimesh Jhaveri, Schenk used partnership documents and communications to develop Walgreens's expectations of finger-stick testing, rapid and broad testing, and a rollout conditioned on performance metrics. His redirects asked whether favorable assessments and continued confidence depended on representations that the technology worked, testing was accurate, and stated capabilities were current rather than merely aspirational. With investors John Bryan Tolbert and Daniel Mosley, he traced how company materials, a recorded investor call, validation claims, financial information, and Holmes's communications informed investment decisions. His redirects distinguished claims of current capability from future vision and addressed the defense focus on sophisticated investors and incomplete follow-up diligence.

Schenk's laboratory and patient examinations developed other parts of the prosecution's proof. Sunil Dhawan testified on direct about his limited operational involvement and signing 58 validation reports without seeing the Edison run an assay; Schenk's redirects separated Dhawan's assumptions from facts he had verified. Constance Cullen described validation work performed by Theranos that lacked sufficient technical detail and was later presented as independent validation. Mark Burnes and Mehrl Ellsworth addressed a reported PSA result of 26.1, repeat testing, and the need to confirm an abnormal result before further intervention.

During the defense case, Schenk cross-examined Fabrizio Bonanni to establish that his knowledge began with post-2016 board service and later Minilab work, not the earlier Edison testing or investor communications at issue.

In closing, Schenk organized investor and patient evidence around conspiracy, scheme, knowledge, materiality, intent, and interstate-wire requirements, while reminding jurors that the court's instructions controlled. He argued that the evidence showed deliberate deception rather than an ordinary business failure, distinguished evidence admitted only for notice or knowledge, and answered defense themes concerning inexperience, Holmes's decision not to sell stock, defense witnesses, and parts of Holmes's account. He told jurors they did not need to resolve Holmes's allegations of abuse by Ramesh Balwani to decide the fraud charges, and he requested guilty verdicts on the remaining counts.