Holmes completed redirect and recross, addressing technical reliance, Balwani, investor communications, trade-secret disclosures, Walgreens, and cash timing. Limited exhibits were admitted for state-of-mind purposes, the defense rested, and the government declined rebuttal. The court preserved the renewed Rule 29 motion, requested briefing on a proposed motion to strike, and scheduled closing arguments.
Full day summary
Elizabeth Holmes completed redirect and recross testimony. On redirect, she said she consulted technical personnel before describing projected capabilities, relied on validation reports, and repeated some of Ramesh Balwani's language in texts to show she was listening and avoid provoking him. She accepted that responsibility stopped with her but denied knowing every event or decision at Theranos, trying to mislead investors or patients, or framing investor presentations around only the clinical laboratory's current test menu.
On recross, Holmes agreed that Theranos's trade-secret policy contemplated sharing confidential information with partners and others protected by confidentiality agreements. She confirmed that the proposed Walgreens rent model was never finalized, the rollout remained limited to 41 stores, and the $75 million Walgreens innovation fee arrived in January 2014 rather than September 2013. She also agreed that investors were entitled to truthful answers about Theranos's current capabilities.
The court resolved remaining exhibit disputes by admitting limited materials only for their effect on Holmes's knowledge or state of mind, not for the truth of their contents. The defense then rested, the government declined rebuttal, and the court told the jury that the evidentiary phase was complete.
Outside the jury's presence, Holmes renewed her Rule 29 motion, which the court preserved and reserved. The parties set a deadline for joint proposed jury instructions. The government announced an intended motion to strike portions of Holmes's testimony after the defense did not call its expert; the defense challenged the timing, and the court requested a written submission without ruling on the merits. After confirming juror availability, the court scheduled closing arguments to begin December 16, potentially continue December 17, and excluded December 22 from deliberations.