We have been following the Theranos case for quite some time, and writing about the trial for more than three months. In the many weeks this (sometimes) sensational trial has been unfolding, something like 25 witnesses have been called to the stand. The former Stanford dropout who wanted to emulate the late Steve Jobs could be sentenced to 20 years in prison. She could also be fined $2.75 million.
Juries are fickle. How will they ultimately feel about the woman who now faces 11 federal charges of defrauding investors and patients? Will they sympathize with her and think, “Well, she was simply a failed Silicon Valley entrepreneur who tried her best?” or will they agree that “Elizabeth Holmes played a ‘shell game,’ of fraud as her technology failed?”
Who is Elizabeth Holmes?
No one is neutral on the topic of Elizabeth Holmes. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Schenk, in his closing arguments said:
“She chose fraud over business failure. She chose to be dishonest. That choice was not only callous, it was criminal.”
He has a point. Indeed, the company was faking blood tests and faking the capabilities of the MiniLab testing equipment. They were playing with people’s lives. They chose board members who were scientifically and medically naïve. They faked lab reports and provided investors with faked endorsements. They claimed the military was using the equipment; it wasn’t.
On the other hand, the now 37-year-old single mother is claiming sexual and emotional abuse by her former lover and Theranos COO, Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani. She is claiming that she tried her best and her only failure was like the failure of hundreds of entrepreneurs before her. She was not trying to deceive, only to keep her company afloat while attempting to perfect the technology.
16 People Weighing Ethics
The jury, consisting of 10 men, 4 women and two alternates are about to get the case. They must weigh a serious question: “Who, ethically, is Elizabeth Holmes?” For in the end, that is all that matters.
We already know from previous posts based on testimony that “Silicon Valley” is having to re-think its “fake it until you make it” mentality courtesy of Elizabeth Holmes. We know as well that “Hollywood,” on the show American Greed, featured Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes (December 7, 2021). The movie, Valley of Hype (2019) was based on the book “Bad Blood,” about Elizabeth Holmes.
The court of popular opinion has decided the guilt of Elizabeth Holmes. Will this influence the jury, or is it clutter having no effect?
Of course, the case isn’t a “zero-sum” game. The jury could reach a middle settlement, perhaps five counts out of 11, or a lesser fine, or no jail sentence whatsoever. Perhaps her sentence is exactly what she is going through at this moment; four months of hell. And, in these moments she is realizing choices and consequences.
Ethical behavior does not care about fame, fortune or social status. Either we are ethical or we’re not. There will be those who will gloat if Elizabeth Holmes is found guilty, and others who will revel at the outcome if Holmes goes free. Both reactions are unethical in and of themselves.
This case of prosecuted fraud would not have gotten to this point had this company been ethically run. And no matter the outcome, lingering doubts will remain as to what happened and who, Elizabeth Holmes was in an ethical sense.
Now, it is up to the jury and to the ethical truth.
LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS!
