Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
personpersonLance A. WadeLance A. WadeAttorney on Elizabeth Holmes's federal criminal defense team.← All People
DefenseDefense team (Elizabeth Holmes)

Lance A. Wade

Attorney on Elizabeth Holmes's federal criminal defense team.

AppearedFederal Criminal Trial
12,744 lines·95 proceedings·1 mention

About

Lance A. Wade delivered the defense opening for Elizabeth Holmes, describing Theranos as a genuine but failed company and arguing that laboratory problems and investor losses did not prove fraud. He said Holmes believed in its technology, relied on qualified personnel, and acted in good faith.

Wade cross-examined laboratory insiders about their knowledge, formal responsibilities, and Theranos's attempts to validate or fix tests. Erika Cheung maintained that written procedures were not always followed despite his questions about quality safeguards. Surekha Gangakhedkar agreed that assay-development work and validation planning occurred, but distinguished them from clinical validation. Wade spent several days testing former laboratory director Adam Rosendorff on signed validation reports, inspection records, proficiency testing, earlier testimony, and possible bias. Rosendorff accepted some regulatory responsibility and assay approvals while insisting that quality and management problems continued.

Wade also questioned controller So-Han Spivey about cash, revenue, and research spending. With investors Lisa Peterson, Daniel Mosley, and Brian Grossman, he used agreements, risk warnings, and prior statements to challenge their accounts of diligence and reliance. Peterson and Grossman maintained that Theranos's own representations still mattered to their decisions. The court barred further questioning about Peterson's diligence and reaffirmed that a lack of investor diligence was not a defense.

Trial Record (95)

FederalFederal Criminal TrialAug 31, 2021 – Jan 3, 2022

Lance A. Wade gave Holmes's defense opening and cross-examined laboratory insiders and investors. He framed Theranos as a troubled but genuine business, pressed witnesses on validation, regulatory responsibility, diligence, and risk, and argued that the government had not shown fraudulent intent.

Day 4

Day 6

Day 7

CrossErika Cheung — CrossErika CheungLance A. Wade419lines spoken

Summary

Defense counsel emphasized Theranos's trained laboratory teams, formal validation reports, multiple approvals, and written operating procedures while narrowing Cheung's personal expertise. Cheung agreed that QC preceded patient testing but maintained that validation was sometimes compressed, written procedures differed from practice, and frequent reader failures required extensive recalibration.

Day 8

CrossErika Cheung — CrossErika CheungLance A. Wade347lines spoken

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.

Day 9

Day 11

Day 12

Day 13

CrossAdam Rosendorff — CrossAdam RosendorffLance A. Wade1,231lines spoken

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.

Day 14

CrossAdam Rosendorff — CrossAdam RosendorffLance A. Wade762lines spoken

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.

Day 15

Day 16

ProceduralLaboratory-Comparison Testimony Evidence Hearing39lines spoken

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.

Day 19

Day 20

Day 23

Day 24

ProceduralHearing on Peterson Video Evidence41lines spoken

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.

ProceduralHearing on Peterson Materiality Foundation26lines spoken

Summary

The court treated challenges to Lisa Peterson's knowledge of RDV's investment decision as primarily matters of weight, while the defense preserved its foundation objection and the government clarified Peterson's limited role in authenticating two later interview videos.

Day 25

Day 26

Day 27

Day 28

colloquyCMS Report and Voided-Test Evidence Colloquy17lines spoken

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.

Day 30

Day 31

ProceduralLIS Evidence and Door-Opening Hearing12lines spoken

Summary

The parties debated whether a possible missing-LIS argument would open the door to evidence about the system's unavailability, and the defense agreed to provide limited notice by the next afternoon. The government also announced a limited recall of Danise Yam concerning an email.

Day 33

ProceduralLIS Evidence and Trial-Management Hearing15lines spoken

Summary

The court heard competing positions on whether LIS cross-examination had opened the door to broader government evidence and whether the defense could later argue that missing LIS data reflected a failure of proof. The defense declined to limit its arguments, and the court issued no new ruling.

Day 34

CrossBrian Grossman — CrossBrian GrossmanLance A. Wade802lines spoken

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.

Day 36