Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
personpersonKelly I. VolkarKelly I. VolkarAssistant United States attorney and member of the prosecution team in the Elizabeth Holmes trial.← All People
ProsecutionU.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of California

Kelly I. Volkar

Assistant United States attorney and member of the prosecution team in the Elizabeth Holmes trial.

AppearedFederal Criminal Trial
256 lines·14 proceedings

About

Kelly I. Volkar represented the United States in evidentiary hearings and charge conferences during the Holmes trial. Her work included a dispute over text-message evidence during Daniel Edlin's cross-examination and the admissibility ruling that followed.

Volkar presented the government's position on the defense's proposed use of excerpts from Sunny Balwani's prior testimony. The hearings addressed whether the excerpts were factual or cumulative, whether they were complete in context, and whether the defense had adequately established Balwani's unavailability. Those arguments concerned the testimony's admissibility, not a determination of Balwani's truthfulness.

Later in the trial, Volkar argued for excluding late-produced documents and addressed whether the CMS report should be admitted, struck, or limited to a particular purpose. She also participated in conferences over how the charged conspiracies and fraud schemes, offense elements, and derivative-liability concepts should be presented to the jury, along with the remaining limiting instructions and verdict-form issues.

Trial Record (14)

FederalFederal Criminal TrialAug 31, 2021 – Jan 3, 2022

Kelly I. Volkar represented the United States in evidentiary and jury-instruction disputes involving text messages, Sunny Balwani's prior testimony, late-produced documents, and the CMS report.

Day 21

Day 22

Day 39

ProceduralHearing on Admission of Sunny Balwani’s Prior Testimony1highlight21lines 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.

Highlights (1)

Quote“MOST OF THEM ARE NOT NECESSARILY SELF-INCULPATORY BECAUSE THEY'RE SHARING BLAME OR DEFLECTING BLAME, AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAS TOLD US THAT THOSE ARE NOT THE TYPE OF STATEMENTS THAT 804(B)(3) INTENDS TO PERMIT.”— Kelly I. VolkarThe government summarized its principal objection to treating the selected deposition excerpts as statements against Balwani's interest.Open in transcript →

Day 40

ProceduralHearing on Defense Motion 1163 and Balwani Deposition Excerpts1highlight15lines spoken

Summary

The court questioned whether Balwani's deposition excerpts qualified as statements against interest, directed further Rule 106 work, accepted the defense's withdrawal of the null-protocol portion, and deferred the remaining discussion.

Highlights (1)

Quote“I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN CHERRY PICK CERTAIN ANSWERS IF THEY'RE GOING TO READ THE FULL PORTION.”— Kelly I. VolkarThe government stated its central Rule 106 objection to presenting selected portions of Balwani's deposition answers.Open in transcript →

Day 41

Charge ConferenceCharge Conference on Conspiracy and Wire-Fraud Instructions1highlight45lines spoken

Summary

The parties disputed how to instruct the jury on the two conspiracy and wire-fraud theories, unanimity, derivative liability, intent, good faith, and puffery. The court requested shorter and revised proposals while reserving final decisions for a later conference.

Highlights (1)

Quote“THE FIRST STEP IS IF INTENT TO DEFRAUD IS PROPERLY DEFINED, NO GOOD FAITH INSTRUCTION IS REQUIRED AND INTENT TO DEFRAUD IS VERY WELL ESTABLISHED BY PRECEDENT IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT, MOST RECENTLY THE MILLER CASE.”— Kelly I. VolkarThe government stated its principal reason for opposing a separate good-faith instruction.Open in transcript →

Day 42

ProceduralGovernment Motion to Exclude Late-Produced Documents1highlight18lines spoken

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.

Highlights (1)

Quote“WE THINK THAT RULE 16 PROVIDES THE REMEDY HERE, WHICH IS WHEN THERE'S AN UNFAIR SURPRISE WHEN IT COMES TO NEW DISCOVERY, THE REMEDY IS TO EXCLUDE THOSE DOCUMENTS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE ASK YOUR HONOR TO DO.”— Kelly I. VolkarStates the government's central theory that repeated late production warranted exclusion rather than additional review time.Open in transcript →

Day 44

ProceduralCMS Report Admissibility and Limited-Purpose Hearing1highlight12lines spoken

Summary

The parties disputed whether the CMS cover letter could be used for its truth in closing; the court deferred a ruling while it reviewed the admission transcript.

Highlights (1)

Quote“4621A, THE COVER LETTER, THE GOVERNMENT WAS INTENDING TO ARGUE THAT TO THE FULL BENEFIT THAT IT THOUGHT IT WAS ENTITLED, WHICH WAS FOR THE TRUTH.”— Kelly I. VolkarThe government expressly identified the use it intended to make of the disputed cover letter during closing argument.Open in transcript →

Day 45

ProceduralCMS Report Admissibility and Motion-to-Strike Hearing1highlight5lines spoken

Summary

The parties contested whether CMS Exhibits 4621A and 4621B should be struck or limited to notice and state of mind, with no new ruling announced.

Highlights (1)

Quote“IT'S A CRITICAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE. RULE 403 IS NOT A BASIS TO OVERTURN THE COURT'S PRIOR EVIDENTIARY RULING, AND THE DEFENSE ESSENTIALLY ADMITS THAT THERE'S NO CONFRONTATION CLAUSE ISSUE HERE.”— Kelly I. VolkarThe government summarized its opposition to striking the exhibits and its response to the defense's constitutional argument.Open in transcript →