Federal Criminal Trial

Jury selection opened with COVID-related excusals and extensive questioning about media exposure, personal experiences, impartiality, and hardship. The court excused several prospective jurors for bias or hardship, removed multiple jurors exposed to Bad Blood or a Theranos podcast, and declined to exclude Ms. Hernandez because of her reported learning difference.

The court examined prospective jurors’ hardships, publicity exposure, and possible biases, issued numerous cause and hardship excusals, and set the remaining 41-person roster for peremptory strikes and alternate selection.

The court struck two prospective jurors for cause, swore 12 jurors and five alternates, and gave the panel its initial trial orientation and recess admonition.

Judge Davila instructed the jury before the parties presented competing opening theories of fraud and good-faith business failure. Former Theranos controller So-Han Spivey then testified about Holmes's receipt of financial reports, unaudited financial statements, early cash shortages, and declining reported revenue from 2009 through 2011.

The court planned an inquiry into two communications from Juror No. 12 and canceled the next session after Juror No. 9 reported a possible COVID-19 exposure. Proceedings were scheduled to resume September 14, subject to continued updates on the juror's testing.

Juror health, hardship, and outside-information issues preceded testimony about Theranos's finances and laboratory practices. So-Han Spivey addressed revenue, losses, cash, and forecasts, while Erika Cheung described ongoing validation and vitamin D quality-control failures.

Erika Cheung described Edison quality-control failures, data-point removal, proficiency-testing disparities, and her internal and external reporting. Cross-examination addressed her limited role, Theranos validation records, compressed timelines, and differences between written procedures and laboratory practice.

Erika Cheung completed testimony about validation, quality control, and Edison workflow. Surekha Gangakhedkar then described unresolved device problems and concerns about a planned patient launch, while cross-examination emphasized the limits of her CLIA-laboratory knowledge and favorable earlier assay results.

Gangakhedkar distinguished assay development from CLIA validation and reaffirmed device concerns at her resignation. Zachman and Gould then described conflicting Theranos HCG results, the resulting belief that Gould was miscarrying, and their loss of confidence in the laboratory.

The court resolved text-message completeness and admissibility issues, Justin Offen authenticated PwC’s reconstructed message evidence, and James Mattis described his reliance on Theranos representations and eventual loss of confidence.

Adam Rosendorff testified that Theranos launched despite incomplete validation and his warnings about unreliable assays, staffing, and training. He described inconsistent Edison results, moving HCG testing to a conventional analyzer, pressure to defend questionable results, and his decision to preserve emails. The court deferred disputes over possible bias cross-examination.

Adam Rosendorff completed direct examination on testing accuracy, proficiency testing, inspection preparation, and his departure from Theranos. Cross-examination addressed his government interviews, prior testimony, CLIA responsibilities, assay validation, and the timing of the Walgreens rollout.

Rosendorff acknowledged signed Edison validations and corrected his broad proficiency-testing testimony while maintaining that later quality and compliance problems persisted. Celgene’s Victoria Sung said comparative testing did not support validation or further use of Theranos assays. After the jury left, the court deferred a dispute over possible evidence concerning destruction of the laboratory information system.

Defense counsel tested Adam Rosendorff's recollections and oversight through AAP records, HCG communications, and physician complaints. Rosendorff acknowledged several practices and communications while preserving concerns about assay accuracy, implementation, and laboratory control.

Defense counsel completed Rosendorff's cross-examination after deposition impeachment, questions about his departure, and limited inquiry into a current CMS inspection. On redirect, Rosendorff defended his government cooperation and returned to Edison validation, HCG testing, and unresolved quality-control concerns.

The court replaced a juror whose religious concerns affected her ability to vote, then retained the replacement after addressing her language concerns. Rosendorff completed testimony about test performance, laboratory authority, and HCG quality-control emails. Former Safeway CEO Steven Burd described Holmes's representations, Safeway's reliance, and repeated deployment delays.

Steven Burd described Safeway’s extensive preparations, laboratory problems, repeated delays, and unrealized Theranos rollout, while the defense emphasized Safeway’s diligence and contractual protections. Wade Miquelon then outlined the testing capabilities and validation materials Walgreens understood to support its partnership. The court also addressed juror-questionnaire disclosure procedures and limited renovation-cost evidence.

The court completed a sealed juror inquiry before Wade Miquelon testified about Walgreens's reliance on Theranos's technology assurances, conditional rollout plans, and the early pilot's low fingerstick use. Fedwire records were later admitted, but a display failure interrupted Roberto Amenta's direct examination.

Walgreens executive Nimesh Jhaveri described an expansion plan conditioned on operational metrics, while qualifying favorable patient surveys and reported accuracy assurances. Sunil Dhawan testified that his laboratory-director work was limited and that he signed validation reports without having seen the Edison run an assay.

Sunil Dhawan described his reliance on Theranos personnel and records while distinguishing assumptions from firsthand knowledge. Daniel Edlin then testified about restricted information, staged devices, and demonstration procedures that he understood could conceal protocol failures from visitors.

Daniel Edlin described concealed demonstration errors, revised result reporting, Holmes's review of investor and public materials, and military projects that did not reach clinical deployment. The court admitted a military presentation but sustained objections to a complaint log, while cross-examination emphasized Edlin's limited technical knowledge and reliance on company scientists.

Daniel Edlin described Theranos’s military exercises, demonstrations, public-claim review, and limited FDA clearance. Redirect focused on artificial military results, hidden demonstration errors, result selection, and the doubts that preceded his departure, while the court addressed several evidence disputes.

Judge Davila replaced a juror who had worked on Sudoku during testimony. Shane Weber described Pfizer's adverse Theranos review, and John Bryan Tolbert explained the recorded representations and other considerations behind Hall's $5 million investment.

Lisa Peterson traced RDV's Theranos review and approximately $100 million investment to Holmes's representations, company materials, and an October 2014 meeting. Cross-examination tested RDV's limited independent diligence, Peterson's authority and recollection, and the timing of the commitment, while broadcast and later-assessment disputes produced rulings and deferred issues.

A courthouse water outage forced evacuation and canceled testimony after the court limited further inquiry into Lisa Peterson's diligence and deferred disputed Alan Eisenman email issues.

Peterson defended RDV's reliance on Theranos's oral and written representations, while the court declined to admit Exhibit 2065 through her at that time. Cullen disputed claims that Schering-Plough independently validated Theranos, and Mosley explained why claimed outside validation and financial information supported his investment despite acknowledged risk.

The court reserved decision on whether Patient BB could testify about a platelet-test result after arguments over notice and lay-opinion limits. Daniel Mosley’s cross-examination covered his Theranos review, investment risks, client introductions, and redemption protection; on redirect, he identified capabilities he believed already existed before he invested.

Christopher Lucas described Black Diamond Ventures' $5.35 million Theranos investment, its limited diligence, and his reliance on information from Holmes and commercial-partner signals. Lynette Sawyer testified that she lacked access and information while serving as laboratory co-director, while the defense emphasized the temporary, limited terms of her assignment.

The court set provisional limits on Roger Parloff's testimony, allowing carefully framed inquiry into his interviews and Fortune article while restricting credibility opinions, subjective speculation, and broad hypotheticals. Subpoena objections remained under submission pending his testimony.

Lynette Sawyer described the limits of her off-site laboratory-director role and her dissatisfaction with the information she received. Kingshuk Das testified about Theranos's CMS response, the voiding of approximately 50,000 to 60,000 Edison tests, and his conclusion that the instruments were unsuitable for clinical use, while the court restricted selected CMS evidence to Holmes's knowledge and intent.

Kingshuk Das defended his laboratory review and testified that Holmes supported voiding results but disputed how the problems were characterized. Investor Alan Eisenman described the company representations behind his investments, later information concerns, and the written risk terms he accepted.

Cross-examination of Alan Eisenman focused on Theranos disclosures, his 2013 investment, possible share sales, and his contacts with government agents. The court also deferred a dispute over his original notes while redirect addressed the present-tense technology claims he said informed his investment.

The court left the LIS dispute without a new ruling and continued excluding customer surveys. Spivey addressed advertising-payment approvals, while Grossman detailed PFM's Theranos diligence, investments, and reliance on company representations when partner access was denied.

Brian Grossman described PFM's extensive but constrained Theranos diligence, its reliance on company forecasts and Holmes's statements, and assumptions about rare venous draws and proprietary analyzers. Erin Tompkins testified about a reactive Theranos HIV screen, later negative testing, and her unsuccessful effort to obtain an explanation; argument over the permissible scope of cross-examination remained unresolved at adjournment.

The court limited Holmes-Parloff interview excerpts and addressed the scope of Tompkins's testimony. Burnes and Ellsworth traced sharply divergent PSA results, while Parloff testified about Holmes's representations concerning Theranos's test range, analyzers, military use, and pharmaceutical reports before facing questions about reporting ground rules and note reliability.

The government completed Roger Parloff’s testimony, obtained dismissal of Count Nine, and rested. The defense preserved Rule 29 and evidentiary motions, presented Trent Middleton and Fabrizio Bonanni, and began Elizabeth Holmes’s direct examination.

Elizabeth Holmes described the 1 Series cartridge failure, development of the 3 Series, research and pharmaceutical work, and her understanding of the proposed 4 Series. The court limited several exhibits to her state of mind, then heard a dispute over late defense disclosures without announcing a Rule 16 remedy.

Elizabeth Holmes addressed Theranos's unfinished platform development, admitted adding pharmaceutical-company logos to reports sent to Walgreens, and explained the limited disclosure of modified commercial analyzers. She also denied pressuring laboratory personnel and attributed financial projections to assumptions in Ramesh Balwani's model.

Holmes testified about Theranos’s military claims, laboratory oversight, her relationship with Balwani, and her unsold equity. The court deferred evidentiary motions concerning Balwani’s SEC testimony and a patient-results email.

Holmes acknowledged authority over Theranos, regretted the company's treatment of Erika Cheung, and accepted responsibility for mishandling the Wall Street Journal response while facing questions about device use, pharmaceutical reports, and company finances. The court found Balwani unavailable to testify, deferred a final ruling on parts of his deposition, and resolved other evidentiary matters.

The court reviewed disputed conspiracy and wire-fraud instructions, directed further research and shorter proposals, and left most issues unresolved. The government also disclosed that dismissed Count Nine remained on its proposed verdict form by mistake.

The court considered late-produced documents and unresolved foundation issues before Holmes completed another extensive segment of cross-examination. Redirect then addressed laboratory oversight, modified analyzers, partner reports, finances, and trade-secret restrictions before recessing unfinished.

Holmes completed redirect and recross, addressing technical reliance, Balwani, investor communications, trade-secret disclosures, Walgreens, and cash timing. Limited exhibits were admitted for state-of-mind purposes, the defense rested, and the government declined rebuttal. The court preserved the renewed Rule 29 motion, requested briefing on a proposed motion to strike, and scheduled closing arguments.

Judge Davila resolved several final-instruction disputes, approved a separate good-faith instruction, and rejected proposed multiple-conspiracies and broad trade-secrets instructions. The government withdrew a pure-omissions wire-fraud theory, while the CMS exhibit dispute and some instruction language remained unresolved.

Judge Davila settled major charge disputes concerning willfulness, Holmes's personal knowledge, and investor terminology. He also limited disputed CMS material to notice rather than its truth and requested clarifying instruction language.

Judge Davila limited jurors' use of CMS report excerpts before the prosecution argued that Holmes knowingly deceived investors and patients. The defense began its closing by portraying Theranos as a genuine business and disputing fraudulent intent before the court recessed with its argument unfinished.

The defense completed its closing, the prosecution delivered rebuttal, and the court gave final instructions before sending the jury to deliberate. Outside the jury’s presence, the court also addressed whether the defense’s trade-secret argument approached an advice-of-counsel theory.

The court denied the jury's request to take instructions home, directing that all deliberations occur in the jury room.

The court granted the jury's request to rehear specified clips from two audio exhibits, then returned the jury to deliberations after the playback.

After renewed instructions and confirmation of a deadlock on three counts, the jury returned four guilty verdicts, four acquittals, and no verdict on three counts. The court declared a mistrial on the unresolved counts and continued Holmes's release conditions pending review.