[82lsju]

Stanford’s Bob Weisberg on Guilty Verdict for Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes

Any thoughts on why the jury did not find her guilty on all 11 charges?

The main point is that the jury wasn’t convinced of the fraud against physicians and patients. This was only a small portion of the government’s case, in part because Judge Davila wanted to restrict the time spent on it. But jurors were probably skeptical because unlike the major investors, doctors and patients were mostly relying on general advertising by Theranos or by secondarily learning of Holmes’s claims. Plus, for the patients who testified, the facts were muddy as to how much of the financial or medical detriment they suffered could be directly traced to hearing her claims. Of course, their testimony might still have indirectly helped the government win the major investor counts by reminding the jury of the potential public health harm of the fraud.

https://law.stanford.edu/2022/01/04/stan...th-holmes/

[82lsju]

Stanford’s Bob Weisberg on Guilty Verdict for Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes

Any thoughts on why the jury did not find her guilty on all 11 charges?

The main point is that the jury wasn’t convinced of the fraud against physicians and patients. This was only a small portion of the government’s case, in part because Judge Davila wanted to restrict the time spent on it. But jurors were probably skeptical because unlike the major investors, doctors and patients were mostly relying on general advertising by Theranos or by secondarily learning of Holmes’s claims. Plus, for the patients who testified, the facts were muddy as to how much of the financial or medical detriment they suffered could be directly traced to hearing her claims. Of course, their testimony might still have indirectly helped the government win the major investor counts by reminding the jury of the potential public health harm of the fraud.

https://law.stanford.edu/2022/01/04/stan...th-holmes/