The Daily Signal - Former Prosecutor Analyzes Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes' Trial

Episode Date: January 6, 2022

“Fraud over failure.” That’s what prosecutors argued Theranos founder and CEO Elizabeth Holmes chose, according to former prosecutor and Heritage Foundation legal fellow Zack Smith. Holmes was accused of defrauding investors with promises of new medical technology that would have revolutionized health care. Smith joins "The Daily Signal Podcast" to discuss the ins and the outs of the trial. We also cover these stories: Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey announces the state will give up to $7,000 in educational funding to families who face unexpected school closures. Americans fled high-tax states in droves last year, choosing instead to lay down roots in states with lower tax burdens. French President Emmanuel Macron says that French people who will not get vaccinated are “irresponsible” and "not citizens."  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Thursday, January 6th. I'm Mary Margaret Ollahan. And I'm Doug Blair. Fraud over failure. That's what prosecutors argued. Theranos founder and CEO Elizabeth Holmes chose as her trial for wire fraud came to a close. Former assistant U.S. attorney and Heritage Foundation legal fellow, Zach Smith joins the show today to discuss the ins and outs of that trial and give you the facts that you need to know.

But before we get to Doug's conversation with Zach Smith, let's hit our top news stories of the day. Arizona's Republican Governor Doug Ducey announced Tuesday that the state will give up to $7,000 in educational funding to families who face unexpected school closures, according to a press release from the governor's office. The money is intended for transportation, tutoring, child care, and school tuition. The news came the same day that the Chicago Teachers Union voted

to refuse to work in person out of concerns about surging COVID cases. The school district then canceled all classes Wednesday in response to the union's decision, leaving more than 300,000 public school students out of school. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot called the union action, Illegal Work Stoppage. The union tweeted, Educators of this city want to be in buildings with their students. We believe that classrooms are where our children should be.

But as a result tonight show, Mayor Lightfoot and her CPS team have yet to provide safety for the overwhelming majority of schools. Americans fled high-tax states in droves last year, choosing instead to lay down routes in states with lower tax burdens. According to 2021 U.S. census data as analyzed by the Tax Foundation, New York State lost 1.8% of its population, whilst the District of Columbia shrank by 2.8%. Illinois in California also lost population at around 1% each. By contrast, low-tax Idaho gained population by 3.4%. while Utah gained 2%. Interestingly enough, New York and D.C. both raised income taxes in 2021, the only two states in the country to do so. French President Emmanuel Macron said in remarks published Tuesday

that French people who will not get vaccinated are irresponsible and not citizens. According to a translation from the Guardian, Macron said, we have to tell them, from January 15th, you will no longer be able to go to the restaurant. You will no longer be able to go for a coffee. you will no longer be able to go to the theater. You will no longer be able to go to the cinema.

He added, When my freedoms threaten those of others, I become someone irresponsible. Someone irresponsible is not a citizen. During Wednesday's White House press briefing, a reporter asked White House press secretary Jen Saki why President Biden has not followed Macron's scolding tactics. Saki told a reporter,

Obviously the French will make their own decisions about the most effective way to communicate with their public. Here's Saki via CBS News. As we've worked to address COVID, go ahead, Daniel. I have two questions. French President Emmanuel Lacrohn said this week that he plans to hassle the unvaccinated to try to get them to get the shot. Since there are millions of Americans who have not been persuaded by the various government campaigns to get vaccinated, does, you know, why hasn't the president focused more on kind of scolding the unvaccinated to try to tell them, hey, this is not working for,

society, we're, you know, we keep getting these shutdowns. Now stay tuned for my conversation with Zach Smith as we discussed the trial of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes. Do you have an interest in public policy? Do you want to hear lectures from some of the biggest names in American politics? The Heritage Foundation hosts webinars called Heritage Events Live. These events are free and open to the public. To find the latest heritage events and to register, visit heritage.

slash events. Our guest today is Zach Smith, a former assistant U.S. attorney and a legal fellow in the Mease Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. Zach, welcome to the show. Thanks so much for having me on, Doug. I appreciate it. Of course. So let's talk about the trial of Theranos founder and CEO Elizabeth Holmes, which just

wrapped up. Holmes was found guilty on four counts of defrauding investors out of 11 counts that were brought forward. Let's dive into the case, but let's kind of get started with a bit of a primer. Who was Holmes? What was she on trial for? And then why was this case important? Sure.

Those are all great questions, Doug. And I will add one thing. You know, she was originally indicted, along with her then boyfriend, Sunny Bawwani, on 11 counts back in June of 2018. But the government actually superseded that indictment, which just means they brought forward a new indictment, and they had an additional charge. So when she went to trial, she was actually facing a 12-count indictment, two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and then 10 counts of substantive wire fraud charges as well. So these were very serious charges, and there's a lot going on at the trial. But in terms of who Elizabeth Holmes was, you know, she started Theranos, which was a medical testing company. They were really trying to push the envelope in terms of what can be accomplished with testing books.

blood samples. They were supposed to be able to run lab tests using only a very small amount of blood, and they were supposed to be able to run them more cheaply and more quickly than the traditional methods that were then in place at that time. Elizabeth Holmes, she dropped out Stanford when she was 19 years old to found Theranos to become its CEO, and she really gained a lot of national attention and rose to prominence beginning in 2013 when she and Theranos began aggressively marketing their supposed testing capabilities. And what happened, starting in 2013 and afterwards, really laid the groundwork for a lot of the charges that were ultimately brought against her and a lot of the information that came out at trial. You know, this is the type of trial and story

you tend to see on something like American greed or another true crime. type show. It's a white-collar case. She's accused, you know, again, of potentially committing wire fraud, defrauding investors, defrauding customers. And it's really a fascinating story in a lot of ways. Now, one of the things that struck me when you were saying that is that the government itself actually added in an extra charge. Instead of 11, it became 12 because the government did an extra charge on this. Does that normally happen? Is that kind of a weird thing, or is this normal? No, that's pretty normal. I mean, look, I think what's important to emphasize, you know, a lot of the other high-profile trials we've seen going in the past year or so have been also criminal cases, but they tend to be violent crimes, theft, murder, those types of trials, which not to diminish the importance or complexity of taking those cases to trial, but this type of white collar, wire fraud trial, conspiracy to commit wire fraud trial is a completely different beast. This trial, this trial, took almost three months to complete 15 weeks. There were over 30 witnesses who took the stand at the trial,

and ultimately over 900 exhibits were presented at the trial. That's a huge undertaking. It's an incredibly difficult task to try a case of this size, this complexity. And so what happened in this case really wasn't out of the ordinary for these types of white collar fraud type trials. They are just very difficult to bring, and in fact the government often supersedes its original charging document, its original indictment, to add additional charges as further evidence becomes available. One of the things as I was reading this was she was only found guilty on four of those counts. It seems like the vast majority of the counts she was not found guilty. What was the rationale for finding her guilty on four counts, but not the other ones? Well, there were really two different buckets that I think we can put the majority of the charges in.

One is she and Sunny Bawani were accused of defrauding investors, potential investors. They were trying to get to invest in Theranos. And then they were also accused of committing wire fraud, defrauding customers, doctors and patients, who are supposed to use this technology. And by and large, the four counts she was found guilty on, she was found guilty of three substantive counts of wire fraud, basically using interstate wires, which can be things like the phone, the internet, to commit fraud to get folks to invest in Theranos and conspiracy to commit wire fraud in regards to those same types of

investors. So she's found guilty on basically the allegations that she defrauded investors, but she was acquitted, by and large, on charges that she defrauded patients and customers. Now, I do want to add one clarification, Doug. There were actually three substantive counts of wire fraud as it related to investors that the jury couldn't reach a verdict on. They were deadlocked. And so those charges, she was not found guilty of those charges. She was not found not guilty of those charges. Just the jury could not reach a verdict on three counts of the indictment.

So those charges could still potentially be tried again by the government. Now, I doubt the government will try her again on those charges, but that certainly remains an option going forward. What in particular about those three specific charges caused the jury to find a mistrial? It seems like the other ones there was acquittal, the other ones she was found guilty. What would, with those three charges was like, we can't find a verdict? It's hard to say, you know, we don't really know what goes on in the jury room unless a juror comes forward and talks to the media or talks to the lawyers. Now, in this case, there has been at least one juror who's come forward to offer some insight into what happened in the jury deliberation room, why the jury reached certain conclusions,

but we don't really know why the jury deadlocked on those specific charges. It could be something to do with the credibility of the witnesses, whether they thought the government had reached their burden of proof of proving those charges beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest burden we know an American law, or whether there's some other factor at play. But really, at the end of the day, all we know is that at least on those three charges, some jurors wanted to commit, some jurors wanted to acquit, and ultimately they could not reach a decision.

Now, you mentioned that it is possible for Holmes to go on trial again for some of these charges. You said it was unlikely. Why do you think that is? Well, it's unlikely because even though Elizabeth Holmes was charged with, 12 counts in the indictment. The ultimate penalty she faces more or less remains the same, whether she is convicted on those three additional charges or the four charges that she was already convicted on stands. And the reason for that is for each count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud or each count of substantive wire fraud, the maximum penalty is 20 years in prison

are $250,000 fine plus paying any restitution, she might owe. And typically, you know, the judge could run those sentences consecutively, which is one after another for each count, but more typically, judges tend to run sentences concurrently, meaning she would serve time on all counts simultaneously. And so at the end of the day, the ultimate amount of time she would likely serve in prison wouldn't change probably much, if at all, even if you were to be convicted on those additional charges. Okay. So the trial is over. We've gone over a little bit of what happened, maybe what some of the

jurors were thinking, maybe what some of the jurors possibly could have been thinking. Now that it's over and we have all this information, what are your impressions of how this trial went? How did it all go down? Well, I think it was a very difficult case to bring to trial. And you really saw two competing teams at trial. The prosecutors basically took. the theme that Elizabeth Holmes picked fraud over failure, that Theranos was in trouble when it started coming to light, that her company couldn't substantiate all the claims that it had been making, that it looked like some of the business deals she had been touting, particularly with some very

large pharmaceutical chains like Walgreens were in trouble. And so they essentially said rather than having her company fail, she chose to commit fraud. Now, the defense's theme, kind of pushing back against that idea, was that. essentially that business failure isn't fraud and that their position was that Elizabeth Holmes was a hardworking individual who was trying to do the best that she could for her company, but that she did not commit fraud in the process of being the CEO of fairness. Now, obviously, the jurors cited with the government on at least four counts of the indictment. They sided with the defense on other counts. And again, they couldn't reach a verdict on three of those

counts. But, you know, what was really interesting to me, Doug, is the fact that Elizabeth Holmes actually took the stand at her trial and testified in her own defense. That is a somewhat unusual move. Typically, most defense attorneys, not always, but typically caution their clients against taking the stand to testify. You know, a criminal defendant does not have an obligation to testify a trial. the criminal defendant does not have to prove anything at trial. The burden of proof rests entirely with the government. And so it's typically seen as a somewhat risky move for a defendant to testify because at that point it essentially becomes a credibility contest between the government's witnesses and the

criminal defendant. Who does the jury believe? So the fact that Elizabeth Holmes did take the stand that she stayed on the stand over the course of multiple days of trial, that was a. somewhat surprising move from my perspective and really a bold move by Holmes and her defense team. I want to follow up on that because this isn't the first time in one of these high profile cases that the accused has gone up on the stand themselves. I'm remembering the Kyle Rittenhouse trial where Rittenhouse himself went up on the stand and that was sort of viewed as an abnormality

or an aberration from the norm. Do you find that maybe this is something that's going to become more common as time goes on as this seems to be a strategy that more and more of these high-profile cases are starting to follow? I think it's really going to be a case-by-case determination. You know, there's another recent high-profile case, Gillane Maxwell, sex trafficking trial. In that case, Maxwell did not take the stand that way, presumably, so that she couldn't be cross-examined by prosecutors on some of the very damaging information that came out at that trial. And so that's always a risk that a defendant runs when they take the stand to testify is how credible they'll come across, how credible they will present themselves to the jury, and how they will deal with what's very problematic information that they'll probably be asked about by the prosecution. And I think to some extent that may have happened in this case, you know, when Elizabeth Holmes was on the stand answering questions from her own defense attorneys, she was very, seem to be,

very forthcoming, very loquacious. She talked a lot. But when the prosecutors got up to cross-examine, her start asking her some very difficult questions, some very problematic questions for her case, you know, from her perspective, as a criminal defendant, all of a sudden she couldn't remember certain things. She didn't appear to be as forthcoming as she had been when answering questions from her own lawyers. And so, you know, how that ultimately played out with the jury. We don't really know. Based on the one juror that's come forward and talked to the media, his view was that she did not appear to be very credible at all times on the stand. And so, you know, it certainly could have backfired by her taking the stand. And that's certainly

a risk that any criminal defendant runs when they do, in fact, taking the stand at their trial. One of the things that struck me as interesting was this charge that was brought forward multiple times was wire fraud. The popular narrative, obviously, is that she lied about these blood tests. We talked about that at the beginning of the show, that this was sort of revolutionary technology that would revolutionize the healthcare industry.

What does wire fraud necessarily have to do with that? Why not just like regular fraud? Well, I think that's a great question, Doug, and it's one that comes up quite a bit. You know, this was a prosecution that was implemented by the federal government. So there has to be a federal hook to it. You know, most types of fraud,

if you defraud someone when entering into a business contract, if you defraud someone, you know, for petty theft. You know, the host of most fraud charges are going to be state court crimes. They're going to be governed by state law prosecuted by your local district attorney or your state attorney general. So there had to be some federal charge to get this case under the jurisdiction of federal prosecutors and into federal court. And the way that's most commonly done for these types of cases is through. that wire fraud charge, either mail fraud or wire fraud. In this case, it was wire fraud. And that just means that in committing the fraud, the defendant used some type of interstate wire communication, which can be something like a telephone. Today, more typically, the defendant uses the internet,

email, electronic mail, website in some way to commit this fraud. And so that wire fraud statute is just the federal statute, the hook, essentially, to get this case into federal court under the purview of federal prosecutors. Interesting. One of the things I'd also like to follow up on is in other trials that have been so high profile, we've seen that witness testimony can be crucial to the outcome. Was there a particular emphasis on witnesses in this trial, or was this more evidentiary base? Was this more like, look at what she's done?

Here's the proof. Both. You know, one of the things in white collar, wire fraud cases is they couldn't be very document intensive. You know, I mentioned earlier, there was over 900 exhibits presented at trial. That's an astonishing number. It's a much more document intensive, much more paper intensive process than something like a gun or drug trial would be. But there were also a number of witnesses who took the stand at this trial. And you know, one of the things, I think that garnered a lot of attention for this trial initially, not only the amount that Elizabeth Holmes and stunning Bawani were alleged to have defrauded investors of it, is a very large sum of money, but also some of the high-profile names who are potentially going to be witnesses in this case. You know, former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, set on the board of directors for Theranos. At one point, George Schultz, who's now deceased, set on the board of directors for Theranos as well, his former Secretary of State. And then Jim Mattis, the former Marine Court General, former Secretary

of Defense, also set on the Board of Directors. And in fact, Jim Mattis actually testified at the trial. And so I think having these high-profile individuals potentially be witnesses in the case and then actually having some of them be witnesses in the case certainly garnered a lot of attention. and I would suspect also caught the attention of the jury as well. So we've now kind of learned what the intricacies of the trial are. What now happens to Elizabeth Holmes? Does she go to jail? Does she pay back the money? What is the consequence for Elizabeth Holmes?

Great question. Well, you know, I think, Doug, one of the things to emphasize, you know, Elizabeth Holmes and Sonny Bawani were originally indicted together. They faced the same charges, but they were actually severed for trial, which means that Elizabeth Holmes was tried by herself. And so Sonny Bowenny Bowdoin now has to face his own trial, which is set to begin in a few weeks. And frankly, if I were Sunny Bowani, I would be very uncomfortable right now for a couple of reasons. One, he's already seen that the jury convicted Elizabeth Holmes on four counts of the government's case.

The government's essentially gotten an opportunity to see what works for the jury, what doesn't work for the jury. And so I suspect there'll be better positioned going into the trial of his case as well. And so, you know, Sonny Bawani certainly still faces, I think, a very difficult task in defending himself against these charges. In terms of Elizabeth Holmes, she will not be sentenced until after the trial of Sunny Bawani takes place. after that point, I suspect she would probably appeal the conviction and potentially the sentence as well. But for now, she currently remains free on bail. She could also try to cut a deal with the government, potentially testify against Sonny Bolani in his trial. And so there's a lot of unknowns that remain.

Now, I will say, Doug, you know, the maximum penalty on each count that Elizabeth Holmes was convicted is 20 years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and any restitution. I strongly doubt that the judge will sentence Elizabeth Holmes to that maximum of 20 years in prison. I suspect she will serve sometime in jail, maybe even a lengthy jail sentence, given the dollar value of the fraud that she was found guilty of. but in terms of what that exact sentence will look like, there's a lot of unknowns that still need to be resolved. Do we see this secondary trial as being as high profile as the first?

In some ways, yes, and other ways, no. You know, Sunny Bawani was not the face of Farinos like Elizabeth Holmes was. You know, Elizabeth Holmes got a lot of press attention in some quarters of the media. She was touted as potentially the next Steve Jobs, you know, who's the founder and CEO of Apple for many, many years. So I doubt it will be as high profile. We've already heard a lot of the allegations, even some very salacious allegations that came out at Elizabeth Holmes trial. And, you know, I suspect there may also be a strong possibility that Bawani and his lawyers may even be trying to cut a deal with the government themselves. So I would not be surprised

if before the trial begins, some type of plea agreement is reached between Balani and the government. But it certainly will be very interesting to watch what happens over the next several weeks when there will still be a lot of movement taking place, both for Elizabeth Holmes and for Sunday and Bawani. Does the verdict that the jury reached strike you as appropriate? And why or why not? Well, I think that's really a determination for the jury to make. The jury set through all 15 weeks of trial, heard the evidence presented. I will say, I think the fact that they took a relatively long time to deliberate signals,

that they took their responsibility seriously, that they parsed through the facts, the evidence that the government presented to support each charge, that they took seriously their responsibility to make sure that the government presented evidence to support each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. And so, look, at the end of the day, Elizabeth Holmes was found guilty of committing wire fraud to the tune of almost $144 million. That's the dollar loss amount just on the counts of conviction, which is a very large amount. The other thing I'll mention, Doug, you know, whenever someone is convicted in federal court,

There's the maximum sentence, the statutory maximum, but as part of the sentencing process, an office within the federal court, the probation office, will conduct a sentencing guidelines inquiry, which takes into account a wide range of factors of defendant's criminal history, the nature of the crime, the dollar loss amount of the crime, and we'll come up with a proposed range of what the sentencing guideline range should be for the judge. to consider when sentencing the defendant. Now, what that range will ultimately be, we don't know that yet, but I have seen some suggestions based on the facts that came out of trial, based on the dollar loss amount, the very large dollar loss amount in this case, that the sentencing guidelines range could be somewhere between the 210 to 262 month range. The guidelines are calculated in months, But that shakes out somewhere between 17.5 years to 22 years as a guideline range of imprisonment for Elizabeth Holmes. I kind of doubt the judge will impose a sentence that is that lengthy for Holmes, given her first-time offender status, essentially. But if that does, in fact, shake out to be the guideline range, that would be a very, very lengthy sentence. for Elizabeth Holmes. As we begin to wrap up, I wanted to ask you something more meta.

We've been discussing that this is a high-profile trial in a spate of high-profile trials that have come about recently. Obviously, we were talking about the Maxwell trial, the Rittenhouse trial a little bit. What are the impacts of all of these highly televised trials and highly reported on trials on the justice system? Well, that's a loaded question, Doug. And a tough one to answer, to be honest. But I will say, you know, in terms of this specific trial, I think the biggest impact

may be felt in Silicon Valley and the way businesses conducted there. You know, a lot's been said that the culture in Silicon Valley, especially with a lot of these startup businesses trying to raise funds from investors, from, you know, other sources, that they essentially have a fake-it until you make it mentality. And so I do suspect going forward investors hopefully will do more due diligence about the companies and they're investing in. And companies and founders and other individuals who are trying to raise funds will hopefully be more careful with their representations they're making to these potential investors

and recognize that if they do cross the line and start making fraudulent representations, that the potential is there that the federal government or even state authorities could indict them and hold them criminally accountable for their fraudulent conduct. Interesting. That was Zach Smith, a former assistant U.S. attorney and a legal fellow in the Mease Center for Legal and Judicial Studies here at the Heritage Foundation. Zach, thank you so much for your time. Of course. Thanks so much for having me on, Doug. And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks so much for listening to the Daily Signal podcast.

You can find the Daily Signal podcast on Google Play, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and IHeartRadio. Please be sure to leave us a review and a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and encourage others to subscribe. Thanks again for listening and we'll be back with you all tomorrow. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Virginia Allen and Kate Trinko, sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. For more information, please visitdailySignal.com.