Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes On Trial As Jury Selection Begins (arstechnica.com) 86
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica, written by Tim De Chant: Nearly a decade ago, Theranos touted a revolutionary diagnostic device that could run myriad medical tests without having to draw blood through a needle. Today, the startup's founder, Elizabeth Holmes, goes to court, where she's facing 12 criminal counts for statements she made to investors and consumers about her company's technology. Holmes founded Theranos in 2003 after dropping out of Stanford University at the age of 19. Driven by her phobia of needles, Holmes wanted to create diagnostic tests that use blood from finger pricks rather than from needles. The idea caught on, attracting well-connected board members like Henry Kissinger and James Mattis, drawing over $400 million in investments from wealthy investors including Larry Ellison and Rupert Murdoch, and securing lucrative partnerships with Walgreens and Safeway. At its peak, Theranos was worth over $9 billion. But Theranos' myth started unwinding in 2015 when a Wall Street Journal investigation revealed that the company had been performing most of its tests on traditional blood diagnostic machines rather than its own "Einstein" device. The company's own employees doubted the machine's accuracy.
Holmes and [Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, Theranos' president and chief operating officer] were indicted in June 2018, and soon Theranos was facing mounting civil and criminal investigations. The company settled a Securities and Exchange Commission probe and shut down shortly thereafter. The end of Theranos didn't halt the scrutiny of Holmes' and Balwani's behavior, though. Three rounds of indictments have brought the total to 10 counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The latest indictment, which supersedes the previous two, was filed in June 2020. Both Holmes and Balwani have pleaded not guilty, and Balwani's trial will begin next year. The indictments aren't limited to claims about the company's proprietary diagnostic machine but also include what Holmes and Balwani allegedly said to investors about revenue and business deals. The prosecution says the pair told investors that Theranos would bring in over $100 million in revenue in 2014, helping the company break even, and hit $1 billion in 2015, amounts that exceeded the executives' actual expectations. Prosecutors also say that the pair falsely told investors that the company landed contracts with the Pentagon.
The road to trial has been filled with delays, first due to the COVID-19 pandemic and then again when Holmes became pregnant. Her child was born in July, around the time the trial was supposed to begin. If convicted, Holmes faces up to 20 years in prison. Today's proceedings kick off jury selection, in which prosecutors and defense attorneys will begin questioning over 100 potential jurors. [...] Opening statements are scheduled to begin on September 8, and the trial may run through mid-December. Holmes is expected to claim that Balwani, who was her boyfriend for much of Theranos' existence, was an abusive and controlling partner. A court filing released on Saturday revealed that Holmes is expected to take the stand during the trial and allege that he monitored her calls, texts, and emails and was physically violent, claims that Balwani denies. Her attorneys say these actions affected her "state of mind" when the alleged fraud took place.
Holmes and [Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, Theranos' president and chief operating officer] were indicted in June 2018, and soon Theranos was facing mounting civil and criminal investigations. The company settled a Securities and Exchange Commission probe and shut down shortly thereafter. The end of Theranos didn't halt the scrutiny of Holmes' and Balwani's behavior, though. Three rounds of indictments have brought the total to 10 counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The latest indictment, which supersedes the previous two, was filed in June 2020. Both Holmes and Balwani have pleaded not guilty, and Balwani's trial will begin next year. The indictments aren't limited to claims about the company's proprietary diagnostic machine but also include what Holmes and Balwani allegedly said to investors about revenue and business deals. The prosecution says the pair told investors that Theranos would bring in over $100 million in revenue in 2014, helping the company break even, and hit $1 billion in 2015, amounts that exceeded the executives' actual expectations. Prosecutors also say that the pair falsely told investors that the company landed contracts with the Pentagon.
The road to trial has been filled with delays, first due to the COVID-19 pandemic and then again when Holmes became pregnant. Her child was born in July, around the time the trial was supposed to begin. If convicted, Holmes faces up to 20 years in prison. Today's proceedings kick off jury selection, in which prosecutors and defense attorneys will begin questioning over 100 potential jurors. [...] Opening statements are scheduled to begin on September 8, and the trial may run through mid-December. Holmes is expected to claim that Balwani, who was her boyfriend for much of Theranos' existence, was an abusive and controlling partner. A court filing released on Saturday revealed that Holmes is expected to take the stand during the trial and allege that he monitored her calls, texts, and emails and was physically violent, claims that Balwani denies. Her attorneys say these actions affected her "state of mind" when the alleged fraud took place.
sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:sad (Score:5, Insightful)
It is just sad that she still takes no responsibility and still looks to deflect the blame onto others and portray herself as the victim.
She may very well be a victim, but it's unclear how having an abusive/controlling partner would lead to defrauding your investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars over several years -- even if your state of mind was affected.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't. The goal is to reduce the sentence if she's found guilty, by generating sympathy.
Re: (Score:2)
Jury doesn't do sentencing, the Judge does.
Re: (Score:2)
Jury doesn't do sentencing, the Judge does.
Judges are human. They can also feel sympathy.
Re:sad (Score:5, Funny)
Jury doesn't do sentencing, the Judge does.
Judges are human. They can also feel sympathy.
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, Judges are people [wikipedia.org], and can be influenced by emotion [reason.com], including sympathy.
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious here, since I feel like entertaining logical fallacies today. What if she had murdered someone? Would it still be best if she wasn't locked up since her "pussy is still worth something to somebody?"
I will say our prison system is a fucking disaster in this country, so I get the argument that locking people up isn't the way to go, but that's an across the board change that just won't happen here. In my mind, if someone is caught committing a crime and is prosecuted, they should face trial and
Re: (Score:2)
victim AND perpetrator along with many others. (Score:1)
She may very well be a victim, but it's unclear how having an abusive/controlling partner
She almost certainly wasn't the sole perpetrator; and almost certainly wasn't purely a victim either.
Frauds this big require the collusion of many -- especially her board that was stacked to basically perform stock manipulation. You'd think a medical research company would have a board with at least some people with a background in medical research. But no - not this one - it was stacked with rich and powerful manipulative politicians.
Probably most fair to say she's the fall guy.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: victim AND perpetrator along with many others. (Score:2)
That's what MBAs like to have you believe. Meanwhile many successful companies have subject matter experts in the board (pharmaceutical companies, banks, but also Tesla, Facebook, etc.).
Re: sad (Score:1)
She may very well be a victim
Anything's possible; probability's another story.
Re: (Score:2)
They met when she was 18. Before the company existed. I obviously don't know them. But she could say that he coached and encouraged her all along even before the company was founded. It is a criminal trial so it is to be expected that she will spin the best story she can. She is not going to come clean and admit culpability to anything if there is another option.
Re: (Score:2)
She may very well be a victim, but it's unclear how having an abusive/controlling partner would lead to defrauding your investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars over several years -- even if your state of mind was affected.
But she made a point of telling everyone how much of a powerful independent woman and a shining example of a model CEO she is. And now she's just all "my boyfriend made me do it"?
Honestly it sounds more likely that she's simply a pathological liar.
Re: (Score:2)
She isn't remotely a victim at all. She started and headed up a company that claimed that you can get a whole host of information from 25ul of whole blood. This is an outright lie. She lied to her partners, investors, employees, and the public. Disclaimer: I work in the IVD space to develop products for diagnostic purposes from conception to manufacturing. I know this sector inside and out. I know the players and who is legit and who isn't. She never was.
Investors never asked the all-important question, "Wh
Re: (Score:2)
She isn't remotely a victim at all.
The point was that while she may be a victim of domestic abuse, I don't see how that transfers to defrauding her investors. Others have noted that her claim is a tactic to garner sympathy for a reduced sentence if (more likely, when) she's convicted -- that and having conveniently gotten pregnant before her trial...
Re:sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting pregnant was a smart move on her part. Women and especially new mothers tend to get lighter sentences. People don't want to punish that innocent child by taking the mother away, and people tend to see mothers as less blame-worthy than others.
So her mother status will significantly bias the jury in her favor, and even if she is found guilty, the sentencing will be light because the judge will be biased too.
Re:sad (Score:5, Insightful)
While in actuality the child would probably be better off being raised by anyone else rather than a mother who is a sociopath.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be European.
The Judge will impose the sentence if she is found guilty.
Re: (Score:3)
I will refrain from making a quip about reading comprehension in the US of A.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting pregnant was a smart move on her part
LOL. Guys will fuck anything. Even criminal sociopaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting pregnant was a smart move on her part
LOL. Guys will fuck anything. Even criminal sociopaths.
Look, the whole criminality thing aside she's hot as long as she's not talking like a man and making weird eyes. I bet she's a complete firecracker.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Getting pregnant was a smart move on her part. Women and especially new mothers tend to get lighter sentences. People don't want to punish that innocent child by taking the mother away, and people tend to see mothers as less blame-worthy than others.
So her mother status will significantly bias the jury in her favor, and even if she is found guilty, the sentencing will be light because the judge will be biased too.
As someone who has actually served on a jury twice in the USA - and for the record I sincerely hope to never do so again because my experience left me permanently cynical about the US justice system - I can assure you that there is very little chance this will happen. Juries are much less interested in bs excuses to get people off than you might think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The leniency usually occurs before trial: Few prosecuting attorneys want to be known for trying pregnant women, and prisons have limited resources for pregnant inmates or rearing infants. So the prosecutors will try to get the defendant to accept a plea without jail time.
I'm waiting for a transgender defendant to identify as pregnant to see how a prosecutor will handle such a defendant. Will they cooperate with the defendant's gender identity?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
They did jury trials for that petty shit? No wonder the court system is so backlogged.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a defense used in a lot of criminal trials. It could work, or it could do nothing, or it could backfire. But I could see a lawyer advising this defense. Ie, young upscale blonde girl versus dark skinned foreigner with a history of being abusive to employees, I could easily imagine juries being swayed.
Re: (Score:1)
It is just sad that she still takes no responsibility and still looks to deflect the blame onto others and portray herself as the victim.
In the early days, the only thing she was guilty of was being an arrogant, spoiled, rich kid. But when her "invention" didn't work, she quickly resorted to flat out lying and it became quite clear that she really is a full-blown sociopath.
Although she turned out to be a complete fraud, I have zero sympathy for any investors who lost money. A breakthrough medical testing device, invented by a 19 year old with zero medical training or experience? Sure, why not? No red flags there. Nope. No red flags a
Re: (Score:2)
The "Poor Little Me" defense with lots of waterworks is probably her best chance of keeping the sentence down. I hope it does not work. She should get at least what Jeff Skilling got for Enron. Women's equality and all that.
Re: sad (Score:1)
Re: sad (Score:2)
Don't you realize how smart it is?
A woman can always find room to blame her partner. Every single couple has material for this and our society is biased towards seeing women as victims of controlling men. Regardless of whether genuine abuse happened, good storytelling will make it work.
So she might actually get away with it. You might think it's unethical to do this, but then if the choice is live free or spend 20 years in jail, the choice is easy.
focus (Score:1)
Personally, I hope she collects a time out.
Grab some popcorn (Score:3)
Because things could get entertaining real fast.
Pricks (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Another blow to women's equality in the workplace. (Score:2)
I think it is a tactic to split the two defendants into two cases and I suspect there's a real chance of Holmes being acquitted on the basis of this defense ...
An a CEO getting off on an "I wasn't responsible because I was an abused woman forced into doing it by an abusive lover" defense would be a massive blow to all women aspiring to employment as CEOs (or other C-suite positions) on an equal footing with men.
Interesting defense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a defense. However, a person's state of mind, why they did the crime, is considered in the sentencing. If she did it because she wanted to appease an abusive boyfriend, she's less likely to do it again, and she might not need as much punishment.
The problem is, to make this claim she has to take the stand, because it's just her saying it. They don't have any objective proof of abuse. And so if she blows the cross-examination, if the Judge doesn't believe her blah-blah, then it would make it harder t
Re: (Score:2)
Its a "no agency" defense. Humans have many unconscious biases, and one of them is that weaker beings are less able to choose their actions. So, they have little or no agency, and therefore deserve little or no blame for what they did. An abuse victim is seen as weak, thus engaging that bias and making them seem like they were pushed into their actions, didn't really have evil intent, and as such don't deserve very much blame.
It's a good defense to use when the evidence is clearly stacked against you.
All she has to do is confuse the jury (Score:2)
Re: Interesting defense... (Score:2)
Pretty woman. Motherhood. Lots of tears while on the stand.
She's going for the emotional defense. The jury will be selected accordingly - people who seem likely to react emotionally rather than rationally.
AFAIK, guilty verdicts have to be unanimous. It only takes 1 or 2 who refuse to convict, and she gets off.
Re: (Score:3)
You're an AC dummy, you start at 0.
Re: (Score:2)
And he got down-modded to -1. What's your problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your post was not down-modded because you are speaking an uncomfortable truth. It was down-modded because:
1) You are off topic. The article is not about the Enron scandal.
2) Your statements about the Enron scandal are incorrect. Some of the executives plead guilty, and others claimed they were mislead (not harassed) by their peers).
3) Your last statement sounds quite misogynistic. It has a tone of moral superiority for men in general, and moral inferiority for women in general. Maybe you intended it to
Re: (Score:2)
Your post was not down-modded because ... [off-topic, false, misogynistic,
You seem to have misread his post. He was bringing up how the defense is itself sexist / misogynistic.
The first part is clearly a sarcastic example of what it would look like if the male perpetrators of a previous major corporate fraud (Enron's "laundering" of California-generated electricity to rake bux off PG&E and California consumers) had attempted a similar defense. That makes it on-topic and the fact that they DIDN'T do t
don't invest in vaporware (Score:2)
I don't ever recall Theranos ever demonstrating a prototype that was verified. To those investors and former employees who sank a lot of their life into this shit-show, sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Even institutional investors have to go by those statements, they're never going to get to take home a company's prototype and potentially leak trade secrets. That's why there are serious penalties for fraud.
If people had the ability to check all the details themselves, you wouldn't need investment fraud laws, you could just let the market handle it.
Re: (Score:2)
The proper way to do it is with a double blinded trial. How they managed to actually do real blood tests on real patients with a new device without that is an interesting question.
Sociopath, Narcissist? (Score:4, Interesting)
I watched a documentary / series of interviews about her a couple years ago (maybe 60 Minutes? not the new one HBO has out), and she gave me the serious creeps, there was something seriously 'off' about her. I expect that she will throw anyone and everyone under the bus to save herself, cry a lot, play all kinds of victim cards, etc. I wonder if she's just a genius huster, or an extreme narcissist with an insane ego who believes in her own 'genius' and hype. Why I got though was someone who was faking having a normal personality, social life, but it felt like some bizarre veneer or cover. If she were a character in a film, you'd expect her to do something horrible in the final act.
Re: (Score:2)
Could be the baritone voice affect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did watch the HBO documentary and she came off the same way there. The way she holds her eyes wide open without blinking when speaking, and the super deep, heavy sounding voice that doesn't seem even remotely natural are just the tip of the iceberg. She's supposedly human, but I get a really serious uncanny valley vibe from her when she's on camera. Like she's going through the motions of pretending to be human, without any understanding at all what it actually means to be human.
I personally knew one p
Re: (Score:2)
The law is too slow it seems (Score:2)
Throw her in the slammer (Score:1)
Not deceit if everyone knows it's a lie (Score:3)
Coupla things about Federal court (Score:2)
The "up to 20 years" is like the theoretical maximum floating point performance of a supercomputer. Not gonna happen unless a lot of things line up. There's an elaborate sentencing guidelines system with points and charts. She will get extra points for "leadership role" but won't get the career criminal bonus or the (I think there's one) firearms bonus.
That said, almost everybody (ISTR 97%) looking at Federal charges decides a plea bargain is better than a post-trial sentence. Most trials (ISTR 3/4) end up
Re: (Score:2)
The "up to 20 years" is like the theoretical maximum floating point performance of a supercomputer. Not gonna happen unless a lot of things line up.
Yeah but if you get Justice Fugaku you're still wind up with 16 years.
Yay! Now waiting for this one (Score:1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
2015.
Will she stop talking in that fake baritone? (Score:2)
Will she finally stop talking in that affected baritone?
Re: (Score:2)
Will she finally stop talking in that affected baritone?
Remember I said this - she'll talk like a little girl in court. If she can pull off the baritone bullshit for that many years she'll clearly do whatever she thinks will help, like, getting pregnant for instance.
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly think it's a toss-up. If she's just a narcissist with sociopathic tendencies, yeah, it'll be the little girl voice for sympathy. But if she's full-blown cray-cray (technical term), she'll keep the super wide open cold stare and deep man-like voice because it makes her feel more important. I'm curious which way she'll go. Maybe she'll start one way and turn into the other by the time she's off the stand. That'd be rich.
Wiil the trial be livestreamed somewhere? (Score:2)
This is a public criminal trial. Or available on youtube after every day's events? Is she planning to take the stand? /. could do a day by day synopsis ending with a score like at a boxing match.
Media coverage (Score:2)
These crooks and criminals get too much media coverage. No wonder they try to sell their life story and profit from that as well. This trial is going to be another media circus.