Jury Selection Day 2 - September 1, 2021
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.
Full day summary
1. Jury Voir Dire (Continued) — Qualifications and Hardship Review
Jury selection opened with juror excusals, preliminary instructions, and voir dire concerning hardship, prior publicity, impartiality, and ability to serve.
Highlights
Pre-Panel Jury Administration and Juror ExcusalsrulingWith no objection from either side, the court excused Mr. Singh, Juror 48, because of the financial hardship involving his business.Prospective Panel Oath and Preliminary Legal Instructionsjury eventThe court explained the conspiracy and wire-fraud counts while emphasizing that the charges and indictment were not evidence, Holmes was presumed innocent, and the government bore the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.Prospective Panel Oath and Preliminary Legal Instructions“BECAUSE MS. HOLMES IS PRESUMED INNOCENT, SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE THAT SHE IS NOT GUILTY.”— Edward J. DavilaThe court directly stated the presumption of innocence and the defendant's lack of a burden to prove innocence.Court Voir Dire on Qualifications, Publicity, and Impartialityjury eventProspective Juror Goldberg disclosed a personal and professional relationship with listed witness Seth Michelson and ultimately acknowledged that Michelson's established credibility would make Goldberg more receptive to his testimony than to conflicting testimony.Court Voir Dire on Qualifications, Publicity, and Impartiality“I THINK THAT MY FIRST RESPONSE IS PROBABLY TRUER, THAT IN THE CASE OF WEIGHING THAT WITNESS'S TESTIMONY AGAINST CONFLICTING TESTIMONY, GIVEN THAT I HAVE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP AND HE'S ESTABLISHED CREDIBILITY, I WOULD BE MORE SWAYED BY HIS TESTIMONY THAN CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY.”— Prospective Juror GoldbergProspective Juror Goldberg candidly identified how his relationship with a listed witness could affect his weighing of conflicting testimony.Court Voir Dire on Qualifications, Publicity, and Impartialityjury eventProspective Juror Dent described extensive prior coverage of the Theranos story, including documentaries, and said she could not honestly be certain that her prior knowledge and medical background would not affect her impartiality.Court Voir Dire on Qualifications, Publicity, and Impartiality“SO I'M A HUMAN BEING. I CAN DO MY BEST TO BE OBJECTIVE, BUT I HAVE A STRONG OPINION.”— Prospective Juror WaxmanProspective Juror Waxman summarized the conflict between his claimed objectivity and his firmly held prior view of the case.Juror Hardship and Cause-Challenge Rulingsjury eventThe court reviewed a series of agreed hardship and cause issues, excusing prospective jurors including Ngo, Goldberg, Nelson, Parodi, Vandekamp, Comilang, Chan, Dominguez, Waxman, Chatham, Forsberg, and Dent.
2. Jury Voir Dire (Continued) — Bias, Counsel Examination, and Challenges
Voir dire continued through juror bias and hardship questions, followed by cause rulings, roster confirmation, and plans for the next morning's peremptory challenges.
Highlights
Resumed Court Voir Dire on Bias and Juror Qualificationsjury eventProspective Juror Bui said he would want to hear Holmes testify even though he understood she was not required to do so; the court explained the presumption of innocence and the difference between an opportunity and an obligation to present a defense.Post-Voir-Dire Cause Challenges and Juror Excusal RulingsconfrontationThe prosecution made a record that five hardship concerns raised by the defense involved jurors it believed were all non-white, while stating that it was not making a motion; the defense strongly rejected any suggestion that its hardship requests were tactical.Post-Voir-Dire Cause Challenges and Juror Excusal Rulings“WE HAVE CONSENTED TO THE DISMISSAL OF EVERY JUROR OF ANY RACE WHO HAS A REASONABLE HARDSHIP REQUEST.”— Kevin M. DowneyThe defense stated its race-neutral explanation for supporting hardship excusals and sharply disputed the prosecution's characterization of the developing record.Final Jury Roster Review and Peremptory-Challenge Planningprocedural actionThe court directed the 41 rostered jurors to report at 9:30, scheduled counsel to begin at 9:00, and explained the rotating first-12 process for peremptory strikes followed by alternate-juror selection.