Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
personpersonRobert S. LeachRobert S. LeachAssistant 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

Robert S. Leach

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

AppearedFederal Criminal Trial
8,011 lines·100 proceedings

About

Robert S. Leach served on the prosecution team and delivered its opening statement. He framed the anticipated proof around representations about Theranos's technology, military and pharmaceutical work, finances, retail partnerships, and test accuracy, connecting those subjects to the charged investor and patient schemes.

Leach developed financial, technical, and laboratory evidence through direct and redirect examinations. He questioned So-Han Spivey about Theranos's finances and transaction records; Surekha Gangakhedkar about device reliability, validation, data access, and concerns communicated to Holmes; Brittany Gould about conflicting pregnancy-test information; and Justin Offen about authenticated Holmes-Balwani messages. His examinations of Victoria Sung, Lynette Sawyer, and Kingshuk Das addressed outside assay comparisons, gaps in laboratory oversight, quality-control failures, and the decision to void Edison test results.

Partner and validation evidence formed another part of his presentation. Leach examined Steven Burd about Safeway's preparations, payments, expected device capabilities, and repeated rollout delays. He argued that Pfizer's internal assessment was relevant to alleged claims of Pfizer validation, after which the court allowed limited use of the report subject to foundation and preserved the defense objection. His examination and redirect of Shane Weber addressed Pfizer's conclusions, management's response, and the use of Pfizer branding.

Leach also used investor witnesses to distinguish business risk and projections from representations about existing capabilities. His examinations of Lisa Peterson and Brian Grossman addressed diligence, reliance, proprietary analyzers, validation, revenue, regulatory status, and military use. After he raised concerns about investor-diligence questioning, the court barred further inquiry into Peterson's diligence and gave no immediate curative instruction. During the defense case, he challenged Trent Middleton's personal and technical knowledge of the records summarized in defense exhibits, then cross-examined Holmes about company control, third-party analyzers, military deployment, revenue projections, partner disclosures, laboratory warnings, and the company's trade-secret explanation for limited disclosure.

At the charge conferences, Leach opposed defense formulations of intent, argued that evidence of other possible legal violations should not substitute for the charged wire-fraud and conspiracy offenses, and contested treating trade-secret advice as an advice-of-counsel defense. When the jury later reported an impasse on three counts, he supported a modified Allen instruction; the court overruled the defense's coercion objection and delivered the instruction with a renewed reasonable-doubt charge.

Trial Record (100)

FederalFederal Criminal TrialAug 31, 2021 – Jan 3, 2022

Robert S. Leach served on the prosecution team, delivered its opening statement, and examined witnesses across financial, laboratory, partner, and investor evidence. His cross-examination of Elizabeth Holmes focused on differences between Theranos's claimed capabilities and its operations, while his evidentiary and instruction arguments addressed validation evidence, investor diligence, intent, and trade-secret explanations.

Day 4

OpeningOpening Statement by the ProsecutionRobert S. Leach1highlight9lines spoken

Summary

The prosecution alleged that Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh Balwani defrauded Theranos investors and patients through misrepresentations about the company's technology, partnerships, finances, retail rollout, and test accuracy. It previewed insiders, investors, patients, outside organizations, and records that it expected would support the wire-fraud and conspiracy charges.

Highlights (1)

Quote“THIS IS A CASE ABOUT FRAUD, ABOUT LYING AND CHEATING TO GET MONEY.”— Robert S. LeachA concise statement of the prosecution's central theory and rhetorical framing.Open in transcript →

Day 6

Day 8

Day 9

ProceduralEvidentiary Hearing18lines spoken

Summary

The court set an initial protocol for displaying selected Holmes-Balwani messages, confirmed limits on customer-impact testimony, and addressed corrected test reports without deciding all message-specific objections.

Day 10

Day 13

CrossAdam Rosendorff — CrossAdam RosendorffLance A. Wade3lines 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 15

Day 16

ProceduralSafeway Renovation-Expense Evidence Hearing8lines spoken

Summary

Defense counsel sought to exclude proposed testimony about Safeway's store-renovation spending, while prosecutors argued that the spending showed materiality; the court explored omitting the exact figure but did not rule in this excerpt. The court also prepared to question a juror concerned about continued service and confirmed that Alternate Juror 3 could remain.

DirectSteven Burd — DirectSteven BurdRobert S. Leach314lines spoken

Summary

Former Safeway CEO Steven Burd testified that Holmes's representations about a fast, comprehensive mini-lab drove a strategic retail agreement, substantial payments, and convertible-note purchases. He also described a failed board demonstration, repeated rollout delays, and Safeway's unmet expectation that Theranos's own technology was operating and validated.

Day 17

CrossSteven Burd — CrossSteven BurdKevin M. Downey15lines spoken

Summary

Defense counsel used Safeway's extensive due diligence, commercial incentives, and contractual safeguards to challenge the nature of its reliance on Theranos. Burd agreed that Safeway understood significant startup and regulatory risks but maintained that key analyzer capabilities were never validated and that no technology problem with the device was disclosed to him.

RedirectSteven Burd — RedirectSteven BurdRobert S. Leach68lines spoken

Summary

Steven Burd reaffirmed Safeway's reliance on representations about Theranos's maturity, finances, device capabilities, and regulatory progress. He said no Walgreens, laboratory, or device problem was given to him as the reason for the December 2012 delays and clarified that Safeway's $275 million figure concerned store remodeling, not payment to Theranos.

Day 21

ProceduralAdmissibility Hearing — Pfizer Internal Report1highlight9lines spoken

Summary

The parties disputed admission of an internal Pfizer assessment, focusing on technical material, critical language, and the difference between Pfizer's private conclusions and what Holmes was told; the court deferred a ruling.

Highlights (1)

Quote“WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MR. LEACH, THAT'S THE BEST EVIDENCE OF MS. HOLMES'S KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT, WHAT SHE WAS ACTUALLY TOLD, NOT SOME INTERNAL PFIZER DOCUMENT THAT IS HARSHLY CRITICAL BUT NEVER GOES TO HER.”— John D. ClineDefense counsel framed the central distinction between information communicated to Holmes and Pfizer's uncommunicated internal assessment.Open in transcript →

Day 22

Day 23

Day 24

ProceduralHearing on Peterson Video Evidence15lines 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 Foundation17lines 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

ProceduralVictim-Blaming Evidence and Argument Hearing1highlight4lines spoken

Summary

The court barred further inquiry into Lisa Peterson's due diligence and reaffirmed that the defense could not use lack of investor diligence as a defense; no immediate curative instruction was given.

Highlights (1)

procedural actionAfter the government reiterated its preference for a curative instruction, the judge noted that instructions can draw attention to testimony; Leach requested more time but said that, absent further word, he did not intend to return to the issue.Open in transcript →

Day 26

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

Day 33

Day 34

CrossBrian Grossman — CrossBrian GrossmanLance A. Wade35lines 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 35

Day 36

ProceduralRule 29 Motion and Evidentiary Record Matters16lines spoken

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.

Day 37

ProceduralRule 16 Disclosure Dispute4lines spoken

Summary

The parties disputed the timing of six defense exhibit disclosures, with no exclusion motion or corrective ruling, before the court warned attendees that keyboard noise was distracting the jury.

Day 38

Day 39

Day 40

CrossElizabeth A. Holmes — CrossElizabeth A. HolmesRobert S. Leach1,548lines spoken

Summary

Holmes's cross-examination covered Theranos's response to critical reporting and whistleblowers, her control of the company, limits on Theranos devices, and Balwani's influence. She acknowledged major mistakes in the Wall Street Journal response, extensive reliance on commercial equipment, and problems with pharmaceutical-branded reports while disputing retaliation and several prosecutorial characterizations.

Day 41

Day 42

CrossElizabeth A. Holmes — CrossElizabeth A. HolmesRobert S. Leach1,082lines spoken

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.

Day 43

ProceduralExhibit Admissibility Proceedings13lines spoken

Summary

The court admitted limited portions of two defense exhibits solely for Holmes's state of mind, kept the remaining customer-feedback material out, and then marked the close of evidence after the defense rested and the government declined rebuttal.

ProceduralRenewed Rule 29 Motion Hearing11lines spoken

Summary

Holmes renewed her Rule 29 motion, which remained preserved and reserved. The court set the jury-instruction schedule and accepted briefing on the government's proposed motion to strike portions of Holmes's testimony.

Day 44

Charge ConferenceFinal Jury Instructions Charge Conference1highlight50lines spoken

Summary

The court resolved major conspiracy, wire-fraud, good-faith, and derivative-liability instructions, while the government withdrew a pure-omissions theory and several wording issues remained open.

Highlights (1)

Quote“I THINK IT'S WARRANTED BY THE EVIDENCE, BUT IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S INTENTION TO ARGUE AN OMISSIONS THEORY, SO IN LIGHT OF THE COURT'S COMMENTS AND SOME OF THE ARGUMENT, WE'RE PREPARED TO TAKE THAT OUT.”— Robert S. LeachThe government abandoned a pure-omissions theory for the wire-fraud instruction despite maintaining that the evidence could support it.Open in transcript →

Day 47

Charge ConferenceConference on Trade-Secret and Advice-of-Counsel Instructions1highlight12lines spoken

Summary

The court examined whether the defense's trade-secret argument approached an unasserted advice-of-counsel defense; defense counsel agreed not to revisit the subject, and no supplemental instruction was announced.

Highlights (1)

Quote“BUT ADDING CLARITY THROUGH THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT THERE'S NO ADVICE OF COUNSEL DEFENSE AT ISSUE I THINK COULD BE BENEFICIAL.”— Robert S. LeachThe prosecution stated its reason for seeking a supplemental instruction while opposing instruction on the nuances of trade-secret law.Open in transcript →

Day 51

Charge ConferenceJury Note No. 3 and Modified Allen Charge Conference1highlight13lines spoken

Summary

After the jury reported no unanimous verdict on three counts, the court overruled the defense's coercion objection and chose to give a modified Allen charge with a renewed burden-of-proof instruction.

Highlights (1)

Quote“I WILL READ 7.7 WITH MR. LEACH'S SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS.”— Edward J. DavilaThe court announced its ruling to give the modified instruction despite the defense objection.Open in transcript →