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.
Full day summary
The court heard arguments over proposed testimony from Patient BB concerning differences involving a platelet test. The defense argued that the assay had not been identified in the bill of particulars and that interpreting the results required scientific testimony; the government acknowledged the omission but asserted that prior disclosures supplied notice and that BB would testify from personal knowledge. The court expressed concern under its earlier motion-in-limine order and reserved decision for a written order. In supplemental argument outside the jury’s presence, the government proposed postponing BB’s testimony to allow more preparation, but the defense maintained that delay would not cure the asserted notice problem. No ruling was announced.
On cross-examination, Daniel Mosley described reviewing Theranos materials, speaking with Holmes, and assessing information about assays, Walgreens, the Johns Hopkins material, and a report he believed Pfizer had authored. He acknowledged substantial financial and operational risks, including the possibility of losing the entire investment, while explaining the redemption protection he sought for himself and participating clients. Emails documented introductions to prospective investors and contemplated investments, and Mosley testified that David Boies had described the technology as sound while identifying performance at scale as the principal risk. The court excluded three post-investment introduction emails as irrelevant but allowed questioning about the introductions.
On redirect, Mosley distinguished future plans from capabilities he believed Theranos already possessed before he invested. He said he understood the company to offer broad and accurate testing, finger-stick collection using small samples, its own devices, a healthy Walgreens relationship, meaningful revenue, and a completed study reflected in the purported Pfizer report. He denied encouraging introduced clients to invest and characterized contrary wording in an email as loose language referring to introductions.