Defense attorneys attempted to describe Balwani as simply an investor in Theranos, but prosecutors used the defendant’s own text messages to debunk that claim
Clinical laboratory directors and pathologists following the criminal fraud trial of ex-Theranos President and COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani may be experiencing a case of déjà vu as the former executive of the now-defunct blood-testing company has his day in court.
Even as Balwani’s defense team attempted to distance their client from the company’s day-to-day decision-making activities, prosecutors followed an almost identical script from the previous fraud trial of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes conducted earlier this year. That trial led to her conviction on four counts of defrauding investors.
As was the case in the Holmes trial, text messages between the two Theranos top executives (Balwani and Holmes) are again center stage in the San Jose, Calif., courtroom of U.S. District Judge Edward Davila.
Balwani Texts Reveal an ‘Unhappy’ Man Under Pressure
Balwani, 56, worked alongside Holmes at Theranos from 2009 to 2016. He purchased $5 million in stock in the company and helped finance the startup by underwriting a $13 million loan. Like Holmes, Balwani faces a dozen counts of fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
Jurors in the Balwani trial were shown a collection of private text messages between Balwani and Holmes—who also was his girlfriend at the time—that shed light on their business and personal relationships.
“I am responsible for everything at Theranos,” Balwani wrote in a text exchange with Holmes, NBC Bay Area reported. “I worked six years day and night to help you … sad about where we are,” he wrote.
“I am very unhappy because my work sucks,” Balwani told Holmes in another text. NBC Bay Area also reported on other text messages that discussed meeting new investors, meeting revenue goals, and potentially buying a corporate plane.
Just like former Theranos CEO/founder Elizabeth Holmes, former Theranos president/COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani (above) faces a dozen counts of fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Clinical laboratory directors will be particularly interested in the outcome of these trails since the responsibility of CLIA-laboratory directors to report anomalies in medical laboratory testing played a key part in defense testimony. (Photo copyright: The Guardian.)
Defense Counterattacks with Expert Testimony
Balwani’s defense team launched a counterattack the following day when witness Constance Cullen, PhD, a former immunologist at Schering-Plough, stated on cross examination that she dealt only with Holmes and never met Balwani or other Theranos executives, NBC Bay Area reported.
During Holmes’ trial, Cullen testified that Holmes had used the Schering-Plough logo without authorization on studies presented to potential investors which aimed to validate Theranos’ blood-testing technology.
Balwani’s defense team previously described him as a Theranos “shareholder” in an effort to distance him from executive decisions that allegedly misled Theranos investors about the startup’s revenues and accuracy of the company’s “revolutionary” Edison blood-testing device, which Theranos claimed could perform hundreds of clinical laboratory tests using a finger-prick of blood.
According to additional NBC Bay Area coverage of the trial, a former Walgreens executive testified he worked closely with Balwani during the drugstore chain’s failed multiyear partnership with Theranos, which included a $50 million investment to bring in-store medical laboratory testing to its pharmacies.
“As a person who was an investor and essentially serving as the chief operations officer, Sunny Balwani absolutely was intimately involved in the Walgreens relationship and all the relationships Theranos had,” chief legal analyst for Esquire Digital and editor of Today’s Esquire, Aron Solomon, JD, told NBC Bay Area in a video interview.
NBC Bay Area reported that prosecutors introduced text messages between Balwani and Holmes in which Balwani admitted he did not inform Walgreens that third-party equipment—not the Theranos Edison device—was being used for much of the actual clinical laboratory testing done in Walgreens stores.
Prosecutors Claim Balwani, Holmes Worked ‘Together’ to Defraud Investors
Earlier in April, government lawyers responded to claims from Holmes’ defense team that Judge Davila should set aside the convictions in Holmes’ fraud case because evidence at trial did not support a guilty verdict, Fortune reported.
The prosecutors countered in a court filing that the “overwhelming weight of the evidence admitted at trial supports the jury’s conviction” of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and fraud on Theranos investors.
Prosecutors maintained the Holmes trial was “replete with examples” of Holmes and Balwani “working together and conspiring to effectuate a scheme to defraud investors.” The two “were constantly in communication via email, text message, and in-person meetings” about the company’s laboratories, financials, patient blood-testing, and relationships with Walgreens, investors, and visits by regulators, the Fortune article noted.
Holmes was convicted on January 3, 2022, on three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Her sentencing date is September 26. She faces up to 20 years in prison but remains free on bond while awaiting sentencing. Balwani’s trial is ongoing.
Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists following the Theranos saga with interest should expect more revelations in the weeks to come. Balwani’s trial, which began in March, is expected to last at least three months.
Jurors are expected to hear closing arguments beginning on December 16 and then will decide Holmes’ fate in criminal fraud trial
It was seven days of testimony from former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes, reported in detail by most major news outlets. The jury in her criminal fraud trial heard the once-high-flying Silicon Valley executive attempt to explain away charges of deception. She acknowledged that she made mistakes while leading the clinical laboratory blood-testing company but claimed that others were ultimately responsible for the company’s failures.
Rosendorff left Theranos in November 2014. He was followed by three more Theranos laboratory directors, all of whom have testified in the fraud case against Holmes.
Presumably, in her testimony, Holmes was laying the blame for key failures in the accuracy of the lab tests performed for patients, along with major deficiencies in how her medical lab company complied with CLIA regulations, on these former Theranos laboratory directors (as the clinical laboratory company’s CLIA lab directors of record during those years).
“Whether you have an intent to defraud is really a state of mind,” she said.
The illustration above depicts ex-Theranos CEO and founder Elizabeth Holmes concluding seven days of testimony in her criminal fraud trial in San Jose, California. Closing arguments are scheduled to begin December 16. Clinical laboratory directors and pathologists following the fraud trail may soon learn whether the four clinical laboratory directors who worked for Theranos may in some way be held accountable for some of the company’s activities. (Graphic copyright: Vicki Behringer/The Wall Street Journal.)
‘We Wanted to Help People’
Holmes’ testimony may have both helped and hurt her case. According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Holmes “hasn’t flinched during questioning by her lawyer or the government.
“The persona of the confident yet traumatized chief executive could create reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors, legal observers following the trial say, and muddy the evidence prosecutors put forward over 11 weeks to prove she intended to defraud investors and patients about the reach of Theranos’ technology,” the WSJ wrote.
During testimony, Holmes maintained that her goal in founding Theranos was to increase access to healthcare. “We wanted to help people who were scared of needles,” she told jurors, the WSJ reported.
In building its case, prosecutors presented witness testimony and other evidence strongly suggesting Holmes lied to investors about Theranos’ laboratory testing capabilities and deployment, concealed its use of commercial blood testing machines, and hid ongoing issues with its Edison device.
One of the most damaging moments of Holmes’ own testimony may have been when she admitted to affixing the logos of pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Schering-Plough to reports sent to Walgreens and potential investors.
Holmes told jurors that her intent was to give credit to others, not to deceive and her defense attorneys attempted to show that many of Holmes’ more questionable decisions were aimed at protecting Theranos trade secrets.
“We had a huge amount of invention that was happening in our laboratories,” Holmes testified, according to CNN’s trial coverage. “We had teams of scientists and engineers that were working really hard on coming up with new ideas for patents and trade secrets, and we needed to figure out how to protect them.”
Holmes Claims No Responsibility for Theranos’ Lab Operations and Product Development
On the witness stand, Holmes acknowledged she was the final decisionmaker at Theranos. However, she worked to distance herself from the company’s medical laboratory troubles. She pointed out that others within the company had control over laboratory operations and scientific decision-making.
The WSJ reported that defense lawyer Kevin Downey asked Holmes, “Who was responsible for operational management of the lab?”
Holmes replied, “Sunny Balwani.” She explained that her former No. 2 executive oversaw all the “business parts” of the lab. Meanwhile, the clinical/scientific decision-making, Holmes stated, was the job of the laboratory director and laboratory leadership.
When given the opportunity to cross-examine Holmes, prosecutors focused on Holmes’ response to the 2015 WSJ investigation into Theranos and her retaliatory actions against whistleblower Erika Cheung, a former lab employee who became a source for the WSJ’s expose and a prosecution witness.
According to WSJ live coverage, Holmes testified that Theranos hired a law firm and threatened Cheung with litigation after she left the company, but only did so to protect Theranos’ trade secrets. Holmes acknowledged that Cheung’s concerns about Theranos’ blood-testing technology ultimately were proven correct.
“I think I mishandled the entire process of the Wall Street Journal reporting,” Holmes said.
Closing Arguments
In her closing day of testimony, Holmes was asked if she ever intentionally misrepresented Theranos’ technology to patients and investors, the WSJ reported.
“Never,” Holmes responded.
Asked if investors lost money because of her attempting to mislead them, she answered, “Of course not.”
Clinical laboratory directors and pathologists who have taken a keen interest in the Holmes fraud trial will soon learn if the jury buys her arguments. Closing arguments are set for December 16, after which the jury must decide whether Holmes intended to defraud patients and investors or is guilty only of falling short in her goal of revolutionizing clinical laboratory medicine.
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.
