Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes asks court to overturn fraud conviction
What specific procedural and evidential issues did Elizabeth Holmes' legal team raise during the appeal hearing to argue for a new trial?
Elizabeth Holmes' legal team raised several procedural and evidential issues during the appeal hearing to argue for a new trial. They claimed that improper procedures and evidence in the case warranted a new trial. Specifically, Holmes' lawyer, Amy Saharia, focused on issues with two main witnesses for the prosecution: former Theranos employee Kingshuk Das and former laboratory director Adam Rosendorff.
The legal team argued that Das should have faced cross-examination about his qualifications, and that the judge should have allowed Holmes to introduce more evidence attacking Rosendorff, including details of a government investigation of his work after leaving Theranos. They claimed that these mistakes could have made the difference in the "close" case, in which jurors were not able to reach a verdict on most counts against Holmes after seven days of deliberations.
On what grounds did Holmes' lawyer, Amy Saharia, claim that Holmes believed she was telling the truth to investors about the capabilities of Theranos's blood testing device?
Holmes' lawyer, Amy Saharia, claimed that Holmes believed she was telling the truth to investors about the capabilities of Theranos's blood testing device because there were many good people working at Theranos who believed they had good technology. Holmes shared this belief and was transparent with investors about it.
What were the main points of contention regarding the testimony of former Theranos employee Kingshuk Das according to Holmes' defense team?
According to Holmes' defense team, the main points of contention regarding the testimony of former Theranos employee Kingshuk Das were:
-
Qualifications: Holmes' team argued that Das should have faced cross-examination about his qualifications, implying that he may not have been qualified to testify as a scientific expert about Theranos's product2.
-
Personal Experience: The defense argued that the judge should have allowed Holmes to introduce more evidence attacking the credibility of another witness, former laboratory director Adam Rosendorff. They claimed that much of Das's testimony focused on his personal observations at the company, rather than his scientific opinions, which could have influenced the jury's decision.
The defense sought to challenge the legitimacy of Das's testimony, suggesting that errors in the trial's proceedings may have unfairly influenced the jury's decision on Holmes's guilt.