Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
personpersonJohn Bryan TolbertJohn Bryan TolbertHall Group representative involved in the firm's Theranos investments.← All People
WitnessHall Group

John Bryan Tolbert

Hall Group representative involved in the firm's Theranos investments.

AppearedFederal Criminal Trial
460 lines·18 proceedings·12 mentions

About

John Bryan Tolbert testified for the prosecution about Hall's review of Theranos and investments made in 2006 and 2013. He described the materials and projections considered during the earlier review, including anticipated contracts, revenue growth, positive cash flow, an expected public offering, and a fingerstick testing system using cartridges and a reader.

Tolbert testified that Hall received little information directly from Theranos for several years and generally obtained updates through Chris Lucas. In December 2013, Tolbert participated in and recorded an investor call with Holmes because Hall might miss it and wanted a record of pertinent investment information. Tolbert identified Holmes's voice and authenticated the recording.

Tolbert said he understood the call to describe significant existing fingerstick-testing capabilities, reduced blood volume and variability, accelerated retail expansion, an established pharmaceutical business, and military-related work. He testified that the call was central to Hall's decision to invest another $5 million.

Tolbert also identified the purchase documents and explained the funding of the investment. He testified that he authorized the transfer, with $4.875 million going to Theranos and $125,000 representing a commission.

Cross-examination tested how much information Tolbert had before the 2013 investment. He said he had no direct contact with Theranos for roughly six years, had asked for but not received financial statements, and asked no questions during the recorded investor call. He could not identify the precise investment decision date, did not directly seek more information or retailer contracts, and agreed that the opportunity was difficult to analyze. Tolbert said the group still had questions but believed it had enough information to proceed, and that Hall had authorized him to choose the investment amount or decline to invest.

Trial Record (18)

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

John Bryan Tolbert testified for the prosecution about Hall's Theranos investment reviews, authenticated a recorded December 2013 call with Holmes, and connected his understanding of the call to Hall's subsequent $5 million investment.

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.

DirectJohn Bryan Tolbert — DirectJohn Bryan TolbertJeff Schenk6highlights180lines spoken

Summary

Tolbert described Hall's $2 million 2006 and $5 million 2013 Theranos investments, the technology and financial information considered during due diligence, and his authentication of a recorded December 2013 investor call.

Highlights (6)

evidence eventAfter a hearsay objection, Tolbert explained how he compiled his contemporaneous due-diligence notes from a Theranos call and other sources; the court admitted Exhibit 3790 under Rule 803(6) and permitted publication.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightTolbert described 2006 representations concerning a projected IPO, signed or negotiated contracts, rapidly increasing revenue, and positive cash flow, explaining why those projections mattered to Hall's investment analysis while acknowledging greater uncertainty farther into the future.Open in transcript →
Quote“BUT WE FELT SOME COMFORT OR SOME EXCITEMENT AROUND, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT THE 2007 PROJECTIONS REPRESENTED WHAT WE BELIEVED WERE CONTRACTS THAT HAD BEEN SIGNED OR WERE DEEP IN NEGOTIATIONS.”— John Bryan TolbertTolbert explained why the near-term revenue projections appeared to carry a measure of certainty during the 2006 investment review.Open in transcript →
Quote“NO. IN FACT, I WAS ENCOURAGED BECAUSE IT FELT LIKE A -- IT DID FEEL LIKE A REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY THAT YOU WANTED TO KIND OF PRESERVE AN ADVANTAGE.”— John Bryan TolbertTolbert said Theranos's limited public information initially reinforced, rather than undermined, his view of the investment.Open in transcript →
Show all 6 highlights
evidence eventTolbert explained why he recorded the December 20 investor call, identified Holmes's voice, and authenticated the recording; Exhibits 1348 and 1349 were then admitted without objection.Open in transcript →
Quote“WE HAD ALSO HAD SOME FRUSTRATION THAT WE HADN'T, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THOSE YEARS, HAD THE KIND OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION THAT WE WOULD HAVE HAD FROM A NORMAL INVESTMENT.”— John Bryan TolbertTolbert identified the information gap that contributed to his decision to preserve the December 2013 investor call.Open in transcript →
DirectJohn Bryan Tolbert — Direct (Resumed)John Bryan TolbertJeff Schenk6highlights96lines spoken

Summary

Tolbert said the December 2013 investor call shaped his understanding of Theranos's technology, retail, pharmaceutical, and military capabilities and was central to a $5 million Series C-1 investment documented by the purchase agreement and wire record.

Highlights (6)

testimony highlightTolbert testified that he understood the first recorded excerpt to describe substantial technological progress since 2006, pharmaceutical work, military contracts, and significant current capabilities, and that those representations mattered to the investment decision.Open in transcript →
Quote“THAT'S CORRECT. YOU KNOW, IF IT FELT TO US LIKE THE TECHNOLOGY STILL WAS IN ITS INFANCY OR DIDN'T WORK THE WAY IT SEEMED TO, YOU KNOW, OUR INVESTMENT CONSIDERATION WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT DIFFERENT.”— John Bryan TolbertTolbert directly connected his investment decision to his understanding that the technology had moved beyond its infancy and worked as represented.Open in transcript →
objectionThe court overruled a defense objection to a question linking information Tolbert had received from Chris Lucas with statements on the recorded call.Open in transcript →
Quote“THIS IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY RESONATED WITH ME. I HAVE A BROTHER WHO IS IN THE MARINES, AND HE DID A TOUR IN AFGHANISTAN, SO THE THOUGHT THAT OUR SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN, IF THEY GOT HURT, THERE WAS AN ABILITY TO, YOU KNOW, DO EVERYTHING THAT WE COULD TO HELP THEM WAS SOMETHING THAT I THOUGHT THERANOS WAS DOING.”— John Bryan TolbertTolbert explained the personal importance he attached to the military representations because of his brother's service in Afghanistan.Open in transcript →
Show all 6 highlights
evidence eventExhibit 3530 was admitted, and Tolbert identified it as the Series C-1 stock purchase agreement for the 2013 investment; he later authenticated the related wire amount and explained the $125,000 difference from the stated $5 million investment.Open in transcript →
Quote“AND SO THE $125,000 DIFFERENCE HERE REPRESENTS THE CASH THAT WE PAID TO CHRIS FOR HIS COMMISSION ON THAT INVESTMENT.”— John Bryan TolbertTolbert explained why the bank record showed a $4.875 million transfer rather than the full stated $5 million investment.Open in transcript →
CrossJohn Bryan Tolbert — CrossJohn Bryan TolbertKevin M. Downey2highlights100lines spoken

Summary

Tolbert acknowledged limited direct contact with Theranos, reliance on Chris Lucas for periodic information, and little follow-up on military and pharmaceutical claims while the defense narrowed what Holmes said during the 2013 investor call.

Highlights (2)

testimony highlightTolbert confirmed that he had no direct contact with Theranos for roughly six years, instead speaking with Chris Lucas about three or four times a year and receiving no requested financial statements during that period.Open in transcript →
Quote“WELL, YOU KNOW, TO BE CLEAR ABOUT IT, WE PAID HIM A MANAGEMENT FEE FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, FOR TWO YEARS.”— John Bryan TolbertTolbert qualified the defense premise by limiting the management-fee period to two years.Open in transcript →
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.

CrossJohn Bryan Tolbert — Cross (Resumed)John Bryan TolbertKevin M. Downey2highlights73lines spoken

Summary

Tolbert acknowledged limited follow-up diligence and unanswered questions before the 2013 investment, while explaining that he retained authority to decline and viewed Walgreens, Theranos's board, and other external signals as supporting the decision.

Highlights (2)

testimony highlightTolbert placed the investor call on December 20 and the wire on December 31, but could not identify the precise decision date. He recalled intervening conversations with Chris Lucas, while saying he did not directly request more information from Theranos or ask for retailer contracts.Open in transcript →
Quote“IF I WOULD HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO MAKE AN INVESTMENT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN OKAY.”— John Bryan TolbertTolbert acknowledged that he personally retained authority to decline the 2013 investment.Open in transcript →
RedirectJohn Bryan Tolbert — RedirectJohn Bryan TolbertJeff Schenk1highlight7lines spoken

Summary

Tolbert clarified that he believed some pharmaceutical and military programs continued despite announced pauses and distinguished a statement about combinations of tests from a claim about thousands of tests.

Highlights (1)

Quote“I JUST THOUGHT IT MEANT IF THERE WAS 100 GOING ON, MAYBE WE WOULD PAUSE 30 OR 40, OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.”— John Bryan TolbertTolbert used a hypothetical to explain why he did not interpret “a large number” as meaning that all or most programs had stopped.Open in transcript →

Day 24

Day 25

Day 28

Day 36

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.

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