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.
Full day summary
Before the prospective jurors entered, the court accepted the parties' agreement to excuse nine unvaccinated candidates for COVID-related hardship and safety concerns, allotted each side one hour for voir dire, and left individual questioning available when a juror's answers warranted privacy. The court then introduced the charges, trial schedule, presumption of innocence, and COVID precautions while addressing hearing, health, and scheduling accommodations.
Questioning focused heavily on exposure to books, documentaries, podcasts, news reports, and online coverage of Theranos. Mr. Chuang acknowledged that a documentary had given him a negative view of Elizabeth Holmes but repeatedly said he could decide the case from the evidence. Other prospective jurors disclosed views involving whistleblowers, medical experts, senior executives, law enforcement, charged defendants, and personal experiences with abuse or domestic violence. Roccaforte and Borlik were excused after expressing doubt that they could remain unbiased, while other jurors were released for financial, caregiving, or medical hardship.
During later cause and hardship challenges, the court excused three prospective jurors who had read Bad Blood and another who remembered a Theranos podcast's negative portrayal of Holmes. It declined to remove Ms. Hernandez based on her reported learning difference, finding no demonstrated cognitive deficiency. Additional challenges were granted, denied, withdrawn, or deferred, and the court stated that the transcript of the challenge discussions would remain public.