This high-risk moment is the culmination of a case that began, in essence, six years ago when The Wall Street Journal uncovered that Theranos had misrepresented the abilities of its blood testing machines. Regulators cracked down on the company, which led to its unravelling. In 2018, Theranos shut down, and Holmes was indicted on charges of fraud.
She has been charged with nine counts of wire fraud over statements made to investors and patients and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Each count carries a maximum potential sentence of 20 years in prison.
“It’s highly unusual for a case to take this long,” said Andrew George, a white-collar defence lawyer at the firm Baker Botts. “They’ve been moving at a pretty leisurely pace for a federal criminal trial.”
Judges have pushed other pandemic-era trials to move quickly given the risks of gathering people together, George said. “Omicron wasn’t in our vocabulary when this trial started,” he said. “The way some courts are handling it is basically hope.”
Delays upon delays
First, there were procedural issues. Then came the pandemic. And then Holmes became pregnant, pushing things back six more weeks. By the time jury selection for United States v. Elizabeth Holmes began in August, a book, a podcast and a documentary had been made about Theranos’ rise and fall. Two more scripted dramas are in the works.
To avoid juror fatigue and build in extra time for any more pandemic-related delays, Davila scheduled the trial’s proceedings to go only until 2 pm for three days a week.
The trail has gripped the USCredit:AP
In its first week, a coronavirus scare cancelled a day of proceedings. As the trial dragged on, extra days were added to get through the prosecution’s list of 29 witnesses, one of whom spent six days on the stand.
Davila has been methodical and lenient in his management of the case, allowing lawyers from both sides to spend hours debating procedural issues before most days of testimony began.
The slow trial pace prompted Adam Lashinsky, a columnist at Business Insider, to declare in early November that Davila was “blowing it” by mistaking “dithering for deliberation.”
Now, with the case in the jury’s hands, the long hours of deliberations have allowed trial watchers to indulge in speculation about what’s happening.
What prompted the roaring laughter coming from the deliberation room? Why were the jurors applauding? Why did lawyers on both sides of the case use a secret side entrance for a closed 23-minute discussion with the judge on Tuesday? Why haven’t jurors had more than two questions for the court?
But what has already occurred in the trial should serve as a warning about what will happen next: Few predictions about how it would go have come true.
Hinging on intent
Little about Holmes’ trial has been typical. Silicon Valley executives are rarely indicted on charges of fraud, especially those with Holmes’ level of fame.
Not many take the stand in their defence, as Holmes did for seven days. And allegations of abuse like the ones Holmes made against Ramesh Balwani, her former business partner, ex-boyfriend and alleged co-conspirator, are extremely rare in white-collar cases.
“My guess is her testimony, more than any other evidence presented at the trial, is causing the jury to struggle over whether there was an intent to deceive or just an overabundance of optimism.”
Christopher Slobogin, a professor of criminal law at Vanderbilt University
The fraud allegations cover nearly a decade of business dealings and span the complexities of blood test science and financial arcana. To convict, the jury must conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Holmes intended to deceive.
Despite mounds of evidence, Christopher Slobogin, a professor of criminal law at Vanderbilt University, said the entire case could come down to Holmes’ testimony.
“My guess is her testimony, more than any other evidence presented at the trial, is causing the jury to struggle over whether there was an intent to deceive or just an overabundance of optimism,” he said.
Until a verdict is reached, there is no way to know exactly why deliberations have dragged on or what it means for the case. The jury has given little indication through notes to the court.
One note asked about taking jury instructions home to review, and another asked to replay a recording of Holmes pitching Theranos to investors.
During the playback, most of the jurors scribbled furiously into their notebooks, while a few sat motionless.
Loading
Many of the jurors have taken detailed notes throughout the trial. One even stopped proceedings when his pen ran out of ink. In October, it was revealed that one juror’s notes were actually a numbers game, Sudoku, which she had been playing to keep her hands occupied during the long hours of testimony. The juror was dismissed after another juror reported her to the court clerk.
Two alternate jurors remain on standby.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
‘Highly unusual’: Why the Elizabeth Holmes trial is dragging on
Source: Philippines Alive
