Split verdict could still mean considerable prison time for the one-time high-flying Silicon Valley entrepreneur
In a trial generating unprecedented interest among clinical laboratory scientists, former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes was found guilty in federal court this week on four charges of defrauding investors.
Holmes faces up to 20 years in prison as well as a fine of $250,000 plus restitution for each count, though sentencing experts predict a much lighter sentence for the 37-year-old whose birth of her first child caused one of multiple delays in the start of the three-month-long trial.
“I suspect she may get five to seven years in prison,” Justin Paperny, Founder of federal prison consultancy White Collar Advice, told Fortune. However, Paperny said Holmes will be unlikely to be eligible for early release in federal prison beyond a 15% reduction in prison time for good behavior.
“There is no real mechanism to really aggressively advance your release date in federal prison,” Paperny told Fortune.
Holmes was acquitted on four counts, while the jury failed to reach a decision on three counts. Judge Edward J. Davila of the US District Court, Northern District of California, who presided over the trial, will sentence Holmes at a later date. Holmes is expected to be allowed to remain free on bail until sentencing.
The graphic above, taken from a CNBC live report, shows the jury’s verdicts in all 11 charges, including those on which the jury did not arrive at a verdict. (Photo copyright: CNBC.)
Trial Delays Due to Pandemic, Holmes’ Pregnancy
According to ABC News, Holmes “expressed no visible emotion as the verdicts were read.” She did not respond to questions about the verdict as she left the courtroom and walked to a nearby hotel where she has stayed during seven days of jury deliberations.
“The jurors in this 15-week trial navigated a complex case amid a pandemic and scheduling obstacle,” US Attorney of the Northern District of California, Stephanie Hinds, told reporters Monday evening, according to ABC News. “I thank the jurors for their thoughtful and determined service that ensured verdicts could be reached. The guilty verdicts in this case reflect Ms. Holmes’ culpability in this large-scale investor fraud, and she must now face sentencing for her crimes.”
The decision followed an often-delayed trial in which the prosecution put 29 witnesses on the stand, most of whom reinforced the government’s contention that Holmes defrauded investors and patients as she worked to bring to market Theranos’ “revolutionary” Edison finger-prick blood-testing device. The prosecution also presented emails, text messages, and other documents that it said were evidence of Holmes’ deceptions.
Dark Daily covered all of this in multiple ebriefings, including the potential that the four CLIA-laboratory directors who held the top laboratory position in Theranos’ lab during Holmes’ tenure as CEO might be held accountable for their actions or inactions on some level.
Details of Charges and Guilty Verdicts against Holmes
According to the Mercury News, the jury returned guilty verdicts on four counts facing Holmes:
Count 1: Guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud against Theranos investors. This charge accused Holmes and Chief Operating Officer Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, of “knowingly and intentionally” soliciting payments from investors with false statements about Theranos’ technology, its business partnerships, and its financial model.
Count 6: Guilty of wire fraud in connection with a 2014 investment of $38,336,632 made by PFM Health Sciences of San Francisco. Brian Grossman, PFM’s Chief Investment Officer, testified that his team was told Theranos had brought in more than $200 million in revenue, “mostly from the Department of Defense.” In realty, 2011 revenue came in at $518,000 and the company had no revenue in 2012 or 2013, according to Theranos’ former head of accounting.
Count 7: Guilty of wire fraud in connection with an October 2014 investment of $99,999,984 made by a firm associated with the family of former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. Managing Director, Global Private Equity at Ottawa Avenue Private Capital, Lisa Peterson testified Holmes claimed Theranos’ technology was in use “on military helicopters,” and sent a report with a Pfizer logo touting the “superior performance” and accuracy of Theranos’ machines. The logo and follow-up questioning, Peterson said, led her to conclude that the report was prepared by Pfizer, which was false.
Count 8: Guilty of wire fraud in connection with an October 2014 investment of $5,999,997 from a company involving Daniel Mosely, the long-time lawyer for former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Mosely testified he also was led to believe Pfizer had approved Theranos’ technology. In a letter to Kissinger, he called the report “the most extensive evidence supplied regarding the reliability of the Theranos technology and its applications.”
The illustration above shows Elizabeth Holmes being kissed on her head by her father after being found guilty in federal court on four charges of defrauding investors while CEO of now defunct blood-testing laboratory Theranos. (Graphic copyright: Vicki Behringer/ABC News.)
The jury of eight men and four women began deliberations on December 20 after closing arguments in the nearly four-month-long trial in San Jose, California. Holmes originally faced 12 counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. One count was dropped during the trial.
During a blistering three-hour closing argument, Assistant US Attorney Jeffrey Schenk hammered home the prosecution’s contention that Holmes choose to deceive investors and patients rather than admit failure in her quest to revolutionize healthcare by delivering a blood-testing device capable of running up to 200 laboratory tests using a finger-prick of blood.
“Ms. Holmes made the decision to defraud her investors, and then to defraud patients,” Schenk told jurors, according to CNBC. “She chose fraud over business failure. She chose to be dishonest with investors and with patients.”
The defense team put three witnesses on the stand, with Holmes emerging as a surprise witness in her own defense. She maintained she never intended to defraud anyone and instead relied on experts within her company for the claims she made about Theranos’ blood-testing device. During her seven days of testimony, she also alleged emotional, physical, and sexual abuse by Balwani. Balwani has denied in legal filings Holmes’ abuse allegations.
Holmes Wanted to “Change the World,” Defense Claims
In his closing argument, defense attorney Kevin Downey maintained Holmes’ intent was not to deceive but to “change the world.”
“At the end of the day, the question you’re really asking yourself is, ‘What was Ms. Holmes’ intent?'” Downey told jurors, according to Business Insider, “Was she trying to defraud people?”
The jury’s answer: “Yes.”
Clinical laboratory directors and pathologists will soon learn the price Holmes will pay for her deceptions when she is sentenced in coming weeks. Meanwhile, the start of Balwani’s fraud trial has been postponed to February 15, according to Bloomberg News.
Former CEO also testified that she believed company’s proprietary blood-testing technology could perform ‘any’ clinical laboratory blood test
One relevant question in the federal fraud trial of ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes was whether she would testify on her own behalf. That question was answered shortly after the government rested its criminal fraud case against the former Silicon Valley clinical laboratory testing company founder. Holmes took the stand in her own defense, a risk her defense team hopes will pay off in her favor.
During her first three days of testimony leading up to the Thanksgiving holiday break, Holmes—who faces 11 counts of fraud and conspiracy related to her tenure as founder and CEO of Theranos—made headlines by admitting she did personally put the logos of pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Schering-Plough on reports she sent to Theranos investors and executives at Walgreens and Safeway. She expressed regret for doing so to the jury, but claimed her intent was not to deceive but to give credit to others.
“This work was done in partnership with these companies, and I was trying to convey that,” she testified, according to a trial coverage from Ars Technica.
When asked if she realized that others would assume the pharmaceutical companies—not Theranos—were the authors of the report, Holmes replied, “I’ve heard that testimony in this case, and I wish I’d done it differently.”
If found guilty, Holmes—who once claimed Theranos’ Edison proprietary blood-testing technology would to be able to complete as many as 200 clinical laboratory tests using a single finger-stick of blood—could face maximum penalties of 20 years in prison, a $2.75 million fine, and possible restitution.
The illustration above depicts ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes testifying on her own behalf. Former Santa Clara County prosecutor Steven Clark, JD, told The Mercury News, “(T)he best person to say what Elizabeth Holmes’ intent was is Elizabeth Holmes, and that’s why I think she’s taking the stand. … I think the jury will like her.” That remains to be seen. But there’s no doubt that Clinical Laboratory Directors should take a strong interest in the outcome of this trail. (Graphic copyright: Vicki Behringer/Reuters.)
Holmes Testifies She Believed the Edison Device Could Perform “Any” Blood Test
In its trail coverage, NPR described Holmes’ first three days of testimony “as having involved deflecting responsibility, pointing to the expertise of the Theranos board of directors, lab staff, and other company employees whom Holmes has suggested were close to how [Theranos’] blood analyzers worked.”
According to Reuters, Holmes’ defense team is arguing that Holmes’ always-rosy forecasts about her company’s technology and finances were based on her belief the proprietary Edison device worked as advertised, which, in turn, was based on feedback from pharmaceutical companies, her own employees, and the military.
During her testimony, Holmes compared a traditional blood-testing device to Theranos’ “3.0” device, which she said would reduce the human-error rate that can occur during blood sampling.
“If we had the ability to automate much of that process, we could reduce the error associated with traditional lab testing,” she told the court.
Reuters reported that Holmes told jurors her confidence in the Theranos device was in part due to how well the unit had performed in studies completed in 2008 and 2009, including those run by drug companies such as Novartis.
The Mercury News described Holmes as speaking with “confidence—and frequently a small smile”—during her opening day of testimony.
Asked by one of her lawyers, “Did you believe that Theranos had developed technology that was capable of performing any blood test?” Holmes responded, “I did.”
Holmes Testifies about Military’s Alleged Use of Edison Device
Prosecutors maintain that Holmes knew Theranos’ proprietary blood-testing technology had serious accuracy issues yet lied about its capabilities and use to lure investors. One of those false claims included allegedly stating the US military was using the Edison device on the battlefield. Earlier in the trial, CNBC reported, prosecution witness Brian Grossman, Chief Investment Officer at PFM Health Sciences, which invested $96 million into Theranos, testified he was told in a 2013 meeting with Holmes and Balwani that Theranos technology was being used in medical-evacuation helicopters.
However, on the witness stand, Holmes described Theranos’ projects with the US military as much more limited in scope than the descriptions outlined by investors testifying for the prosecution.
According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Holmes told jurors a 2010 partnership between Theranos and a US Army Institute of Surgical Research doctor in Texas looked into using the Theranos device to measure blood markers to detect kidney performance. A second project involved the military’s Africa Command, which was determining whether the device could withstand high temperatures. Holmes testified the devices used in Africa “held up well,” though some modifications were needed, and some issues were revealed with the touchscreen.
Should Holmes Have Testified on Her Own Behalf?
Trial experts maintain Holmes’ decision to testify in her own defense could backfire.
“It’s always a risk to put your client on because if they make a mistake they can sink the whole case,” former Santa Clara County prosecutor Steven Clark, JD, told The Mercury News. He added, “what’s at issue here is Elizabeth Holmes’ intent. And the best person to say what Elizabeth Holmes’ intent was is Elizabeth Holmes, and that’s why I think she’s taking the stand. She’s very charismatic. She’s really good on her feet. And I think the jury will like her.
“This is the pitch meeting of her life,” Clark added. “She’s going to be explaining herself to 12 people as to what was in her mind.”
Judge Drops One Count Due to Prosecution Error, Government Rests Its Case
Holmes is now charged with nine counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud after the government dropped one count of fraud from the indictment. According to WSJ coverage of the trial, US District Judge Edward Davila blocked a patient named in the indictment as “B.B.” from testifying because of a filing error by the prosecution. The judge’s decision resulted in the government dropping one count.
The government rested its case against Holmes on November 19 following testimony from independent journalist Roger Parloff, who wrote a flattering 2014 Fortune magazine story on Holmes. He later redacted his earlier writing in another Fortune article, titled, “How Theranos Misled Me.”
The government alleged Holmes used media publicity as part of her scheme to defraud investors, patients, and physicians. All totaled, 29 witnesses appeared for the prosecution, the WSJ reported.
Former Theranos Chief Operating Officer Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani—Holmes’ one-time boyfriend—faces similar charges of defrauding patients, investors, and physicians. His trial is expected to begin in January 2022.
Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists who have watched the federal court proceedings with keen interest should expect the trial to wrap up at the conclusion of Holmes’ testimony, just in time for the Balwani fraud trial to begin.
