Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
Federal Criminal Trialtrial-daytrial-dayJohn C. BosticKevin M. DowneyDaniel EdlindirectcrossDay 21 - October 19, 2021Daniel 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.
← Day 20Federal Criminal TrialDay 22 →

Day 21 - October 19, 2021

Edlin Describes Demonstrations, Public Claims, and Military Projects

Judge Edward J. Davila
4Proceedings
2Pages
1Witnesses
2,157Lines
Day 21 of 51
Appearing:
John C. Bostic Kevin M. Downey Daniel Edlin

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.

Full day summary

Before the jury entered, the parties disputed the proposed admission of Pfizer's internal assessment, military-related exhibits, and a patient-complaint log. The court deferred rulings on the Pfizer report and several other issues. Later, it sustained objections to the complaint log after Daniel Edlin said he had not seen it and lacked knowledge of the recordkeeping process. The court admitted the military presentation in Exhibit 551 in full over defense objections, finding on the evidence then presented that it was material and could be treated as intertwined with the alleged plan. On direct examination, Edlin described Theranos technology demonstrations, reporting practices, investor materials, public statements, patient-related communications, and proposed military projects. He testified that demonstration software concealed device errors, individual results could be removed when reviewers considered them invalid or inadequately performing, and reference ranges could be changed. He also described a Celgene draft that initially distinguished Theranos-device assays from third-party kits before a revised combined list was approved by Holmes. Edlin said Holmes reviewed final website content and approved investor-binder materials containing claims about fingerstick testing, data integrity, and accuracy. Edlin testified that Holmes was highly involved in substantive military communications and approved materials asserting broad testing and field capabilities. He repeatedly qualified that he lacked the technical basis to verify several claims. He said military contacts produced research, evaluation, and cybersecurity work rather than clinical treatment of deployed personnel, and that he understood from conversations with Holmes that resources were redirected to the Walgreens clinical and retail launch. On cross-examination, Edlin emphasized his reliance on Daniel Young and other technical personnel. He agreed that he had not knowingly deceived others or knowingly conveyed false information in his military, investor, pharmaceutical, marketing, website, or press work. A defense exhibit concerning a patient complaint showed Holmes requesting an investigation and Balwani directing that laboratory director Adam Rosendorff receive the data and handle the matter. Cross-examination remained unfinished at adjournment.

1. Trial Scheduling, Pfizer Report, and Military Exhibit Hearings

Outside the jury's presence, the court adjusted the trial schedule and heard unresolved arguments about an internal Pfizer report and military-related exhibits.

→
Procedural
Trial Scheduling and Preliminary Matters

Judge Davila canceled the October 29 trial session, set November 2 as the next trial day, and discussed possible longer court days and when to address Document 1098.

Procedural
Admissibility Hearing — Pfizer Internal Report

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.

Procedural
Admissibility Hearing — Military Exhibits 504 and 551

The parties disputed whether military Exhibits 504 and 551 could show Holmes's knowledge and intent or instead constituted propensity evidence; Judge Davila questioned the chronology but did not rule in the provided record.

2. Daniel Edlin — Direct/Cross (Continued)

Daniel Edlin continued direct testimony about Theranos demonstrations, public and investor claims, patient complaints, and military proposals before cross-examination began.

→
Procedural
Admissibility Hearing — Customer Complaint Log

Counsel disputed admission of a patient-complaint log and whether its delivery to Ramesh Balwani could bear on Holmes's knowledge; Judge Davila deferred resolution pending foundation and a permissible purpose.

Direct
Daniel EdlinJohn C. Bostic
697 lines

Daniel Edlin described concealed demonstration errors, selective removal or reframing of test results, third-party processing, and internal technical problems. He also linked Holmes to report review, revised external communications, and detailed approval of website content while qualifying the limits of his own technical knowledge.

Procedural
Patient Information Redaction Discussion

Counsel and Judge Davila discussed how to redact names and sensitive health information from exhibits used for different purposes, with the court emphasizing safeguards against inadvertent disclosure.

Direct
Daniel EdlinJohn C. Bostic
521 lines

Daniel Edlin linked Holmes to the review and approval of media responses, investor materials, patient-response messaging, and military communications. He also qualified his knowledge of technical claims, describing military devices that could perform only a subset of tests and complaint processes outside his responsibilities.

Procedural
Exhibit 551 Admissibility Hearing

Judge Davila overruled the defense's objections and admitted Exhibit 551 in full, finding that the record supported materiality and an inextricably intertwined evidentiary theory rather than Rule 404(b).

Direct
Daniel EdlinJohn C. Bostic
271 lines

Daniel Edlin distinguished Theranos's military research, evaluation, and cybersecurity testing from clinical deployment, contrasted presentation claims with his limited knowledge and demonstration experience, and described Holmes's role in military planning, resource allocation, and decision-making alongside Ramesh Balwani.

Cross
Daniel EdlinKevin M. Downey
486 lines

Defense counsel narrowed Daniel Edlin's technical expertise, elicited that he relied on Theranos scientists and did not believe his external communications were false, and developed his operational role in a multi-site burn study. The court later deferred a Rule 106 decision about FDA-inspection text messages.

Highlights

Daniel Edlin — Direct“THE NULL PROTOCOL WAS A PART OF THE DEMO APPLICATION. DEMO APPLICATION WAS SET UP ON DEVICES FOR TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS, AND PER SOME OF THE EMAILS WE'VE REVIEWED LAST WEEK, IN THE DEMO APPLICATION IT SHIELDED DEVICE ERRORS FROM VIEW. AND THE NULL PROTOCOL WAS USED FOR -- WAS NOT INTENDED FOR THE SAMPLES TO BE TESTED FOR USE.”— Daniel EdlinEdlin described the demonstration software and null protocol in his own words, including that the application concealed device errors from the viewer.Daniel Edlin — Directevidence eventExhibit 860 was admitted, and Edlin used the email chain to describe discrepant demonstration runs, review by Daniel Young and Elizabeth Holmes, and changes to reference ranges that could make results appear normal or closer to normal.Daniel Edlin — Directevidence eventExhibit 528 showed an initial Celgene draft separating assays on Theranos devices from assays using third-party kits, followed by a revised single list after Daniel Young advised against distinguishing the methods; Edlin confirmed Holmes approved sending the revised draft with Young's comments.Daniel Edlin — Direct“VERY INVOLVED AND DETAIL ORIENTED. THERE WERE STEPS ALONG THE WAY IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT THAT PROBABLY DIDN'T REACH HER REVIEW EVERY TIME. BUT FOR THE END PRODUCT AND WHAT ACTUALLY WENT ONTO THE WEBSITE, SHE DID HAVE A HAND -- SHE DID REVIEW THAT.”— Daniel EdlinEdlin characterized Holmes's involvement in final website review while qualifying that she did not necessarily review every development step.Daniel Edlin — Direct (Resumed)testimony highlightEdlin testified that Holmes approved the materials used in investor binders. Exhibits 1940 and 4869 were admitted, and the latter contained claims about comprehensive fingerstick testing, higher-integrity data, and the highest levels of accuracy.Daniel Edlin — Direct (Resumed)rulingThe court sustained the defense's objections to Exhibit 5439 after Edlin said he had not previously seen the apparent complaint log and lacked knowledge of the complaint-record process.Daniel Edlin — Direct (Resumed)“SHE WAS HIGHLY INVOLVED. I WOULD SAY ANY SUBSTANTIVE COMMUNICATION THAT I HAD WITH THE MILITARY I EITHER DISCUSSED WITH HER AHEAD OF TIME, OUR DISCUSSIONS INFORMED EMAIL DRAFTS THAT I WOULD THEN SEND BACK TO HER TO REVIEW AND APPROVE BEFORE I SENT THEM BACK OUT. I ALSO MADE SURE THAT SHE WAS AWARE OF ANY INBOUND COMMUNICATION THAT WE DID GET FROM MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY. AND ASIDE FROM, YOU KNOW, SCHEDULING AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I REVIEWED EVERYTHING WITH HER.”— Daniel EdlinEdlin directly described Holmes's involvement in developing, reviewing, and approving substantive communications with military representatives.Exhibit 551 Admissibility HearingrulingJudge Davila overruled the objections and admitted Exhibit 551 in full, finding on the evidence then presented that it was material and could be treated as inextricably intertwined with the alleged plan rather than as Rule 404(b) evidence.Daniel Edlin — Direct (Resumed)admissionEdlin said none of Theranos's military contacts resulted in clinical analyzer use and understood from conversations with Holmes that resources had instead been directed to the Walgreens clinical and retail launch.Daniel Edlin — Direct (Resumed)“IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH ELIZABETH, THAT THE RESOURCES REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THOSE PROGRAMS WERE DIRECTED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLINICAL LAUNCH WITH WALGREENS AND THE RETAIL LAUNCH.”— Daniel EdlinEdlin attributed the failure to advance military programs to resource allocation for the Walgreens launch, while preserving that this was his understanding from conversations with Holmes.Daniel Edlin — CrossadmissionIn response to a series of defense questions, Edlin agreed that he had not knowingly deceived others or knowingly conveyed false information in his military, investor, pharmaceutical, marketing, website, or press work, and said his communications often relied on company scientists.
← Day 20Federal Criminal TrialDay 22 →