I find some of this unbelievable. Well that's the wrong word: of course I believe it, but it seems to make so little sense.
Unlike the frenzy that has surrounded nearly every twist and turn in the Theranos saga, the trial of Elizabeth Holmes has been surprisingly mellow.
Holmes, the former start-up executive whose downfall has been retold in a documentary, book and podcast, faces up to 20 years in prison in a case that many see as comeuppance for the wrongs of Silicon Valley.
Court proceedings in San Jose began last month with feverish media coverage, as reporters lined up before dawn to secure a seat in the courtroom and a man who said he was a bystander turned out to be related to Holmes. But the trial — now entering its sixth week of at least 16 — has quickly settled into, well, a trial.
The day-to-day events are mostly procedural, technical and sometimes dull, my colleagues Erin Woo and Erin Griffith write in a new article about what it’s like inside the courtroom. (Apparently Holmes is easy to draw because she rarely moves, a courtroom artist revealed in the piece.)
I caught up with Woo and Griffith, who told me what has struck them about the trial so far and what they’ll be paying attention to going forward.
The jury seems to be the biggest threat to the case staying on track. The trial began with 17 jurors, including five alternates. But we’re less than halfway through, and only three alternates remain.
In the first week, a juror was dismissed after learning that her employer would not compensate her for the time away. Then last week, a juror was sent home after she said her Buddhist faith made her uncomfortable with the idea of punishing Holmes. Her replacement said she did not speak English well, though the judge did not allow her to leave.
“I think a few of us panicked that the whole thing was about to unravel last week,” Griffith told me. “It was hard enough to find 17 people who had never heard of Theranos or Elizabeth Holmes and could set aside three months of their lives for this.”
The jurors also have to be protected from any news coverage of the trial so they remain unbiased. The judge begins and ends each court session by asking whether they have recently heard about Holmes or Theranos.
And there’s the pandemic to worry about — a day of testimony was canceled early in the trial because a juror had a Covid-19 exposure. If the number of jurors drops below 12, there could be a mistrial, a major setback for prosecutors given that the trial has already been delayed repeatedly.
Much of what witnesses have been questioned about hasn’t always been easy to follow. Words like “immunoassays” and abbreviations like H.C.G. (a hormone test) are often presented with no explanation, Woo said.
“Something that I didn’t expect is how much of the testimony deals with very complicated scientific issues, and how little it feels those issues are spelled out for the jury — who were selected at least in part because of their unfamiliarity with Theranos and the biotech industry,” Woo told me. “I’m very interested to see what they get out of this.”
The prosecution is currently presenting its case, after which the defense will begin. Holmes’s lawyers are expected to argue that she was manipulated by Sunny Balwani, her ex-partner and ex-boyfriend.
Holmes is on the list of potential witnesses, though we don’t know if she’s going to testify. Reporters don’t get a heads-up as to who’s on the schedule for the day, and weren’t warned even when former Defense Secretary James Mattis was called to the stand a few weeks ago.
“Every new witness is a bit of a surprise. You hear whispers and furious typing spread like a wave across the room as the reporters relay the news to their editors or Twitter,” Griffith told me. “The moment they called General Mattis was the closest thing to a dramatic movie courtroom moment so far. I actually let out a tiny gasp.”
They picked a jury of 12 plus five alternates. It's going to be a long trial so it make sense to have a decent set of subs in case of illness etc.
One jury member is dismissed because her employer will not compensate her for three months off work. I understand how for some small businesses it might be impossible for the employer to bear the cost of an employee who cannot work, but that sounds like a problem with a solution. Public compensation would seem to be reasonable, obviously supported by some evidence of job status, salary etc.
Then someone pleads Buddhism. Do they not have trials and punishment in Buddhist countries? Of course they do; and anyway why did that not come up during jury selection if it's real?
Then someone apparently does not speak English well. Really? That did not make it into the considerations for jury selection?
Finally one of the reporters said "It was hard enough to find 17 people who had never heard of Theranos or Elizabeth Holmes" - she might have been exaggerating a little but wouldn't it make sense to choose jurors from the 75% (WAG) of the population who have read something about Theranos and Ms Holmes?
This trial is going to depend to some extent on some technical stuff both to do with biotech and the financial aspects of what is and what is not permissible in a startup. I'm all for the defendant getting a fair trial: but don't we, the taxpayers (OK I don't pay taxes to California) also deserve a fair trial? I think based on what I have read and what I know about the industry that she is guilty as hell and she and her lover boy should be locked up until they are old - but I also think that I could serve on a jury and make a real determination as to whether the prosecutors have proved their case. (FWIW I thought OJ Simpson was responsible for the murders of Brown and Goldman but I also thought that the cops made a pig's breakfast of the evidence and the prosecutors were almost useless and based on the accounts of evidence I read I hope I would have voted Not Guilty.)
