USA v. Elizabeth A. Holmes began Wednesday morning in a federal courthouse in San Jose, California, the closest thing Silicon Valley has to a capital. There was a circus-like atmosphere to the first day — everyone, it seemed, wanted to see the former wunderkind boss of Theranos, the blood-testing company that left its investors in the lurch, stand trial over claims of criminal fraud. By the time I arrived, just before 7 a.m.
The prosecution's argument seems strongest with regard to investors. Theranos, Leach said,"raised hundreds of millions of dollars based on false and misleading representations, some made orally with investors, some with PowerPoints, some in news articles." If prosecutors can show that Holmes lied to investors and brought in money in the process, they'll have their"conspiracy to defraud" case buttoned up.
What surprised me about Leach's presentation was how little he dwelled on the crimes Holmes is accused of committing. He certainly previewed at great length her deceits, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods. But he didn't drive home theof those actions. Ever so briefly, he explained two key elements of the law regarding fraud: that Holmes used interstate wires to deceive patients and investors and that she conspired to defraud people while making money.
Wade made Homes out to be a selfless pauper."She never sold a single share of stock," he told the jury."She passed on every opportunity to sell. On chances to make hundreds of millions of dollars. She was motivated by mission, not money." Wade similarly dissed sophisticated investors, portraying them not as victims of Holmes' lies but as greedy profiteers who bungled their own risk assessments. Most interestingly, Wade also fingered the famous ad agency Chiat Day, the same firm that made Apple's image, arguing that what the prosecution called her deceitful misrepresentations were actually the agency's fault. All the marketing hype, he insisted, was"not Miss Holmes's vanity project.
Aside from Holmes, everyone in the courtroom was there of their own free will, with a glaring exception: the 12 jurors and five alternates, all of whom are being required to interrupt their normal routines for the next four months or so. Anyone who has tried to wriggle out of jury duty could sympathize with Juror No. 7, a 19-year-old woman who works part time as a clerk at a retail store.
No they didn't! That's ridiculous.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: YahooNews - 🏆 380. / 59 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: HuffPostWomen - 🏆 27. / 68 Read more »