Earlier Monday, the jury of eight men and four women, who had considered for 45 hours at the time, returned a note indicating that they stood still and could not reach a unanimous verdict on all counts. The jury did not state which points they failed to decide.
In response, Judge Edward Davila, who is leading the case, issued what is known as an Allen indictment, instructing them to continue to consider trying to reach a verdict.
Hours later, the jury returned a new note indicating that it is still not possible to rule on these points.
Before members of the jury were called in to read the additional instructions, Judge Davila raised the possibility of a partial verdict if the jury members remain in conflict to return the verdict for any of the points. In addition to reading the instruction to continue the deliberations, the judge also read aloud some of the original jury instructions related to Holmes̵[ads1]7; alleged innocence “unless or until the government proves her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
“The jury can rule on points they agree on, and then the government will decide whether to try the case again on points they are stuck on,” said George Demos, a former prosecutor for the Securities and Exchange Commission and adjunct law professor at UC Davis School of Law.
Holmes, who was once hailed as a visionary and the next Steve Jobs, faces nine cases of federal fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit electronic fraud due to allegations that she lied to investors, doctors and patients about the company’s ability. to test blood for financial gain.
Holmes, who pleaded not guilty, faces up to 20 years in prison and a $ 250,000-plus fine for each wire fraud count and conspiracy count.
The jury update comes after a trial that lasted three months at a federal courthouse in San Jose. First charged more than three years ago – the trial was delayed by the pandemic and the birth of Holmes’ children – her case marks a rare criminal fraud case against a Silicon Valley founder.
Holmes, now 37, is a retiree from Stanford who founded Theranos in 2003 at the age of 19 with the goal of revolutionizing blood tests. She raised $ 945 million from high-profile individuals, including media mogul Rupert Murdoch, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, Walmart’s Walton family and the billionaire family of former Education Minister Betsy DeVos. At most, Theranos was valued at $ 9 billion, making Holmes a billionaire for a time. Then the dominoes began to fall after a Wall Street Journal survey in 2015.
Federal prosecutors called 29 witnesses to testify, including former Theranos employees, retail executives and a former U.S. Secretary of Defense. Through their testimony, the government tried to unravel the complex web of alleged fraud that they claim misled investors and patients into believing that the company performed a series of blood tests accurately, reliably and effectively with just a few drops of blood taken from one finger. dot with its proprietary technology.
The Armed Forces called in three witnesses, which culminated in lengthy testimony from Holmes himself.
During about 24 hours on the stand, spread over seven court days, Holmes acknowledged some of the authorities’ points, but maintained that she never intended to deceive anyone. Sometimes she expressed a certain remorse. She also blamed others – most notably, her ex-boyfriend, Theranos’ former president and chief operating officer Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani. (Balwani faces the same charges as Holmes and is due to appear in court early next year. He has not pleaded guilty.)
Holmes claimed that she was the victim of a decade-long violent relationship with Balwani, which she testified she tried to control almost every aspect of her life, and claimed that it would help her succeed in the business world. Balwani has previously denied the allegations of abuse in court documents.
Near the end of the time at the stand, Holmes testified that although she was not aware of everything that happened at Theranos, she herself “never” took any steps to try to mislead people who invested in the company.
“They were people who were long-term investors, and I wanted to talk about what this company could do a year from now, five years from now, ten years from now,” she testified. “They were not interested in today or tomorrow or next month. They were interested in what kind of change we could make.”