Jury in Elizabeth Holmes Trial Begins Deliberations

And, believe it or not, she could be found ‘not guilty’

Happy Holidays to my friends and followers here who have been patiently waiting for my latest Elizabeth Holmes trial updates. And if you’re new to my page, I’ve provided two quick synopses of why Holmes is standing trial for fraud and how the trial has been progressing.

Before I get into jury deliberations, let’s get caught up. Holmes, the former founder and CEO of the now-defunct blood-testing company Theranos, is currently on trial and facing charges of defrauding patients and investors. The trial has stretched nearly four months, with testimony from dozens of witnesses including scientists, chief executives and a four-star general.

John Carreyrou, Wall Street Journal investigative journalist and author of “Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup,” has been giving play-by-play coverage of the trial in his podcast, “Bad Blood: The Final Chapter.” He was briefly booted from the courtroom after Holmes’ defense team added him to their proposed witness list, but his team filed a motion stating it violated his First Amendment rights and he was allowed back in.

Testimonies from whistleblowers, former Theranos lab director Adam Rosendorff and project manager Dan Edlin, the ex-CEO of Safeway, and more have been seemingly scathing. All have pointed to Holmes knowingly marketing her blood-testing device, nicknamed the Edison, as the latest and greatest technology on the market despite ignoring and covering up clear evidence that the device didn’t, in fact, work at all.

The jury is debating whether prosecutors have shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Holmes committed nine counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud while pitching Theranos to investors and patients. She faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

Did Holmes’ testimony turn the tides? In a somewhat unprecedented move, Holmes took the stand for seven days and publicly told her side of the story. She acknowledged making a few mistakes and blamed colleagues for others. She cried while accusing her former business partner and boyfriend, Ramesh Balwani, of emotional and sexual abuse. (He has denied the accusations.)

In closing arguments, Holmes’ attorney said she had not purposely misled investors and patients with her statements, and that she thought Theranos’ technology worked. He argued that investors misunderstood statements she made about what Theranos planned to do in the future for what it could do at the time.

Prosecutor John Bostic told jurors Friday not to let any sympathy they feel for Holmes because of her emotional testimony cloud their decision about her guilt on 11 counts of wire fraud and conspiracy. “You do not need to reach a conclusion regarding what happened between Ms. Holmes and Mr. Balwani in order to render a verdict in this case,” Bostic said.

It’s now up to the jury For the government to secure a conviction, the jury has to find Holmes guilty of several elements beyond simply lying about Theranos’s technology. First, the jury has to agree beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Holmes had the intention to defraud others.

Holmes’ defense lawyer urged jurors in his closing argument to acquit Holmes on nine wire fraud and two conspiracy charges, saying she “believed she was building a technology that would change the world.”

And now we wait. For a trial that’s been years in the making — from the first accusations to the pause because of the Covid-19 pandemic and the wait for Holmes to give birth to her first child—it’s now in the hands of a jury of eight men and four women. If the jury doesn’t reach a verdict Tuesday, extra time is scheduled for Thursday. Further days will be scheduled on Thursday, if needed.

As The New York Times puts it, “A verdict in the case boils down to intent. Prosecutors argued that Ms. Holmes purposely deceived investors and patients as she sought investments and business for her start-up. The defense sought to paint her as a well-meaning entrepreneur whose failure was not a crime.”

I, for one, believe Holmes knowingly deceived investors and patients. My interview with Theranos whistleblower Tyler Shultz for Fraud Magazine was pretty telling. Shultz contacted WSJ investigative journalist Carreyrou to share an email exchange he’d had with Holmes and Balwani. In April 2014, Shultz had emailed Holmes to point out poor scientific processes and quality control failures. After several days, he received a response from Balwani, which began: “We saw your email to Elizabeth. Before I get into specifics, let me share with you that had this email come from anyone else in the company, I would have already held them accountable for the arrogant and patronizing tone and reckless comments.”

Other testimonies point to the fact that Holmes was told about inaccurate blood test results and those employees were pressured by Holmes and/or Balwani to defend the results.

And yet, Holmes’ defense worked hard to paint a picture of a young entrepreneur who believed that her product would, one day, become the world-changing technology she was pitching to investors.

I’m not on the jury, I wasn’t in the courtroom, and I didn’t hear all testimonies, so we will have to wait for the jury to reach their fair and impartial verdict. As soon as they do I will provide whatever information I have. But in the meantime, the following have been great resources for me in my continued pursuit of information:

• John Carreyrou’s podcast, “Bad Blood: The Final Chapter.”
• The Wall Street Journal’s “Elizabeth Holmes Trial: Live Updates.”
• The New York Times’ Elizabeth Holmes Trial section online.
• Fox KTVU from San Jose.

Thank you for reading! If you liked this article, please consider reading my other work.

If you would like my work to continue, please consider becoming a Medium member using this link.