Day 32 - November 15, 2021
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.
Full day summary
2. Alan Eisenman — Cross/Redirect/Recross (Continued)
Alan Eisenman's testimony continued through cross-examination, redirect, and recross, while the court separately addressed defense concerns about his handwritten notes and kept him subject to possible recall.
Highlights
Alan Eisenman — CrossconfrontationThe defense introduced the May 2010 email chain and used it to distinguish Eisenman's specific Theranos experience from his general understanding that equity offerings can restrict company and investor disclosures. After repeated nonresponsive answers, the court struck responses and reframed the question.Alan Eisenman — Cross“NO. I UNDERSTOOD THAT SHE WAS HIDING INFORMATION THAT I SHOULD KNOW AS A SHAREHOLDER.”— Alan EisenmanEisenman rejected the defense characterization of Holmes's communications and stated his own understanding of why information was not being provided.Alan Eisenman — CrossimpeachmentEisenman acknowledged that prosecutors told him not to discuss the substance of his ongoing testimony and that he nevertheless emailed Agent Hernandez with reflections on that testimony. He denied sending the message to obtain feedback, and the defense withdrew its request to admit the heavily redacted email after an objection.Hearing on Alan Eisenman's Testimonial NotesrulingThe court kept the original notes for color copying and continued the cross-examination. The parties agreed not to raise the notes issue before the jury pending further discussion, and the court clarified that the notes were not evidence.Alan Eisenman — Cross (Resumed)testimony highlightDefense counsel confronted Eisenman with the representations and warranties in the stock-purchase agreement. Eisenman repeatedly characterized the provisions as boilerplate and distinguished them from his understanding that Theranos had proved itself and was succeeding.Alan Eisenman — Cross (Resumed)“NO, I'M NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
I'M ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THIS IS BOILERPLATE. THAT IF YOU WANT TO INVEST, YOU MUST SIGN THIS. AND I HAD NO POWER TO CHANGE THIS. BUT THAT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE THE COMPANY WAS.”— Alan EisenmanThe answer captures Eisenman's distinction between the agreement's written warnings and his claimed understanding of Theranos when he invested.Alan Eisenman — Cross (Resumed)impeachmentAfter Defendant's Exhibit 14109 was admitted, counsel questioned Eisenman about describing himself as a faithful part of the prosecution team. Eisenman rejected that characterization as subjective but said he believed he had been lied to and taken advantage of and shared the goal that justice be served.Alan Eisenman — Cross (Resumed)“OKAY. FAITHFUL IS A SUBJECTIVE CLAUSE. I'LL BE MORE OBJECTIVE. I THINK THERE WAS BUSINESS FRAUD. I THINK THAT I WAS LIED TO AND TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. I THINK THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF ABUSE THROUGH THE YEARS, AND I WOULD DO WHAT I CAN TO TELL MY STORY, AND I KNOW THAT WE, WE HAVE THE SAME OUTCOME, THAT JUSTICE BE SERVED.”— Alan EisenmanEisenman articulated his personal view of the case and his motivation for cooperating, making the answer central to the defense examination of possible bias.Alan Eisenman — Redirecttestimony highlightEisenman distinguished speculative projections from statements about present capabilities, testifying that Holmes described what Theranos technology could do at the time and that he relied on those representations when investing in 2013.