Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
Federal Criminal Trialtrial-daytrial-dayJohn C. BosticRobert S. LeachJeff SchenkJohn D. ClineKevin M. DowneyKatherine TrefzElizabeth A. HolmesFabrizio BonanniTrent MiddletonRoger ParloffcrossredirectdirectDay 36 - November 19, 2021The government completed Roger Parloff’s testimony, obtained dismissal of Count Nine, and rested. The defense preserved Rule 29 and evidentiary motions, presented Trent Middleton and Fabrizio Bonanni, and began Elizabeth Holmes’s direct examination.
← Day 35Federal Criminal TrialDay 37 →

Day 36 - November 19, 2021

Government Rests, Count Nine Is Dismissed, and Holmes Takes the Stand

Judge Edward J. Davila
10Proceedings
6Pages
4Witnesses
2,862Lines
Day 36 of 51
Appearing:
John C. Bostic Robert S. Leach Jeff Schenk John D. Cline Kevin M. Downey Katherine Trefz Elizabeth A. Holmes Fabrizio Bonanni Trent Middleton Roger Parloff

The government completed Roger Parloff’s testimony, obtained dismissal of Count Nine, and rested. The defense preserved Rule 29 and evidentiary motions, presented Trent Middleton and Fabrizio Bonanni, and began Elizabeth Holmes’s direct examination.

Full day summary

Roger Parloff completed his testimony after defense questioning challenged his recollection of Holmes’s statements about military use and examined the reporting behind his Fortune article. On redirect, he said military use was discussed as a possible application and described his efforts to preserve and review his notes. The court then granted the government’s unopposed motion to dismiss Count Nine, and the United States rested. Outside the jury’s presence, the defense renewed challenges to CMS, patient-testing, and LIS-related evidence and moved for judgment of acquittal on every remaining count. The court reserved judgment on the Rule 29 motion. It also limited a proposed patent summary to applications filed through 2016 before the defense opened its case. Defense summary witness Trent Middleton presented calculations drawn from patent, financial, investment, test-menu, and laboratory records. On cross-examination, he confined his work to counting, sorting, and summing selected data and acknowledged that he lacked personal knowledge of Theranos, the patents’ operation, and the meaning of many underlying entries. Former board member Fabrizio Bonanni then described the later Minilab, regulatory strategy, and 2016 quality and compliance efforts. The prosecution established that he joined Theranos in 2016, knew little about earlier events or the Edison device, and confirmed that the Minilab he observed was neither commercially used for patient testing nor FDA cleared. Elizabeth Holmes took the stand and began tracing Theranos’s origins, technology development, early fundraising, investor diligence, and pharmaceutical-company contacts. She distinguished research validation of more than 300 small-sample assays from the roughly 70 tests offered clinically and the 12 performed on a miniaturized Theranos device.

1. Motion to Exclude Fabrizio Bonanni Testimony and Late Disclosures

The government moved to exclude proposed defense witness Fabrizio Bonanni, and the court considered relevance, personal knowledge, hearsay, and late disclosures without ruling.

→
Procedural
Motion to Exclude Fabrizio Bonanni Testimony and Late Disclosures
122 lines

The government sought to exclude Fabrizio Bonanni's proposed testimony based on relevance and late disclosures. The defense argued that his knowledge of Minilab capabilities and Holmes's later conduct bore on intent. The court raised foundation, hearsay, discovery, and scheduling concerns but issued no exclusion ruling.

2. Roger Parloff — Cross/Redirect (Continued)

Roger Parloff completed cross-examination and redirect before the court dismissed Count Nine and the United States rested.

→
Cross
Roger ParloffJohn D. Cline
378 lines

Defense counsel tested whether Parloff remembered a direct military-use claim or only an inference, examined his article's tests-versus-CPT wording, and documented the breadth of his research through testimony and two admitted email exhibits.

Redirect
Roger ParloffJohn C. Bostic
76 lines

Parloff clarified the conditional military-use wording and defended his note-taking method; afterward, the court admitted Exhibit 4859, dismissed Count Nine without objection, and the government rested.

Highlights

Roger Parloff — CrossimpeachmentDefense counsel compared Parloff's earlier government interviews with his trial account of military use. Parloff described Holmes's statements as creating a very strong inference of Afghanistan use but ultimately said he was uncertain whether she had directly stated it seven years earlier.Roger Parloff — RedirectrulingThe court granted the government's unopposed motion to dismiss Count Nine and told the jury that the count would not be submitted for decision.Roger Parloff — Redirect“THAT IS GRANTED, AND THAT WILL NOT BE BEFORE YOU FOR DECISION.”— Edward J. DavilaThe court informed the jury that Count Nine had been dismissed and would not be submitted for its decision.Roger Parloff — Redirectprocedural actionThe United States rested after presenting its case, and the court turned to the defense before adjourning for defense motions outside the jury's presence.

3. Rule 29 Motion and Evidentiary Record Matters

After the government rested, the defense renewed evidentiary challenges and moved for judgment of acquittal on every count. The court took the Rule 29 motion under submission, limited proposed patent-summary charts, and then brought in the jury for the defense's first witness.

→
Procedural
Rule 29 Motion and Evidentiary Record Matters
200 lines

The defense renewed challenges to the CMS report, Erin Tompkins's HIV-result evidence, and evidence affected by the unavailable LIS database. Holmes also made a Rule 29 motion, which the court took under submission, and the court limited the defense's patent summary to applications filed through 2016 before the defense called Trent Middleton.

Highlights

Rule 29 Motion and Evidentiary Record MattersrulingHolmes moved for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 on every count. The court found the motion timely preserved, reserved judgment, and took it under submission.

4. Trent Middleton — Direct/Cross

Trent Middleton completed direct and cross-examination about defense summaries of Theranos records, repeatedly limiting his testimony to calculations rather than the meaning or reliability of the underlying information.

→
Direct
Trent MiddletonKatherine Trefz
455 lines

Trent Middleton presented defense summaries of voluminous Theranos patent, financial, investment, test-menu, and laboratory records. He explained the limits of his calculations, while the court admitted several summaries, restricted others, and excluded two proposed email exhibits.

Cross
Trent MiddletonRobert S. Leach
313 lines

The prosecution narrowed Trent Middleton's summaries to selected record counts, examining his defense-team supervision and chart preparation while eliciting that he lacked personal, technical, and contextual knowledge about the underlying Theranos activity.

Highlights

Trent Middleton — Directtestimony highlightThe court identified Middleton as a Rule 1006 summary witness and admitted Exhibit 10684, which summarized Theranos patent activity; Middleton said 2014 and 2015 had the most patent applications in the chart.Trent Middleton — Crosstestimony highlightCross-examination established that Middleton had not read or understood the patents and could not assess whether the patented technology worked. His financial calculations likewise came from specified rows of a source document without knowledge of who supplied the receipts or what the stock proceeds represented.

5. Fabrizio Bonanni — Direct/Cross/Redirect

Fabrizio Bonanni completed testimony about Theranos technology, governance, and quality efforts before the defense called Elizabeth Holmes.

→
Direct
Fabrizio BonanniKatherine Trefz
513 lines

Bonanni explained the Minilab through demonstratives and described Theranos's 2016 board debates, regulatory strategy, and quality and compliance reforms. He praised Holmes's receptiveness to advice but identified operational focus and regulatory execution as weaknesses; several proposed opinions were excluded.

Cross
Fabrizio BonanniJeff Schenk
148 lines

The prosecution confined Bonanni's knowledge to his post-2016 board service and Minilab 4.2 work. He acknowledged regulatory and development limits but resisted broader conclusions about Edison testing and lacked knowledge of earlier investor communications.

Redirect
Fabrizio BonanniKatherine Trefz
48 lines

Bonanni said the medical director, not a board member, had authority over the earlier test-voiding decision and acknowledged conducting no independent review. After he was excused, the defense called and swore Elizabeth Holmes.

Highlights

Fabrizio Bonanni — Directtestimony highlightBonanni testified that Theranos undertook major quality and compliance efforts in 2016, including new leadership, a board committee, a corporate compliance program, and a more complete quality-management system.Fabrizio Bonanni — CrossadmissionThe prosecution established that Bonanni joined the board in 2016, lacked personal knowledge of earlier Theranos events, and testified only about Minilab version 4.2. He confirmed that the device was not commercially used for patient testing or FDA cleared and, to his knowledge, generated no results used for medical decisions.Fabrizio Bonanni — Cross“I JOINED THE COMPANY TO INFLUENCE THE FUTURE OF THE COMPANY. I DID NOT -- WHAT YOU CALL THE EDISON DEVICE, I REALLY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF AN EDISON DEVICE. ALL I WAS -- ALL I SAW WAS THE MINILAB AND THE EFFORTS WERE TO COMMERCIALIZE THE MINILAB. AND I HAVE SEEN IN THE NEWSPAPERS, ET CETERA, THE TERM EDISON. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH, AND I AM NOT COMFORTABLE TESTIFYING ABOUT IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.”— Fabrizio BonanniBonanni expressly limited his knowledge and favorable account to the later Minilab effort rather than the Edison device used before his board service.

6. Elizabeth A. Holmes — Direct

Elizabeth Holmes began her direct examination, identifying herself as Theranos's founder and describing her belief in the company's blood-testing technology.

→
Direct
Elizabeth A. HolmesKevin M. Downey
566 lines

Holmes began her direct testimony with Theranos's origins, her belief in its technology, early patent and product development, and fundraising. She described investor diligence and access to pharmaceutical contacts while the court admitted patents, agreements, emails, and device images.

Procedural
Weekend Jury Admonition and Juror Questionnaire Ruling

The court kept completed juror questionnaires sealed through trial and ordered later partial unsealing with limited redactions. After the jury left, counsel addressed the government's concern about late defense exhibit disclosures and the defense's request to review the questionnaire order.

Highlights

Elizabeth A. Holmes — DirectadmissionHolmes said she believed Theranos had developed technology capable of running any blood test, while distinguishing more than 300 small-sample assays developed and validated in research, about 70 offered clinically, and 12 performed on a miniaturized Theranos device.Elizabeth A. Holmes — Directevidence eventHolmes described Don Lucas's diligence as including patent review, audited financials, contracts, and business contacts; the court admitted only pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit 12027, which she identified as a diligence response and a listing of company expenses.Elizabeth A. Holmes — Direct“IT CONSISTED OF GIVING HIM A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT OUR PATENTS. HE HIRED A LAW FIRM TO REVIEW OUR PATENTS. HE ASKED US TO GET AN AUDIT OF OUR FINANCIALS. HE WANTED COPIES OF CONTRACTS AND OTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE BUSINESS. HE WANTED TO SPEAK TO PEOPLE THAT WE WERE TALKING TO AND INTERACTING WITH.”— Elizabeth A. HolmesHolmes gave a detailed account of the diligence she said Don Lucas conducted before investing.
← Day 35Federal Criminal TrialDay 37 →