Elizabeth Holmes’ Lawyers Are Trying (Again) To Have Evidence Thrown Out Of Her Upcoming Trial
While slowly on her way to an inevitable trial – one that has been delayed and pushed back due to Covid – Elizabeth Holmes continues to battle with federal prosecutors in court.
The latest volley from Holmes’ lawyers has been a motion to suppress evidence request asking a federal judge to place restrictions on evidence that the prosecution can enter at her trial as a result of the loss of a database that contained millions of blood test results.
Holmes’ lawyers argued that the defunct database, called the Laboratory Information System and rendered inaccessible since 2018, means that jurors shouldn’t be allowed to hear “anecdotal evidence from patients who received inaccurate blood tests,” the Wall Street Journal reported.
The database would have made the test results clear, instead of the jury having to rely on anecdotes, her defense said.
Government lawyers were given the database in August 2018 but shortly thereafter realized they didn’t have a password to access the files. Four days after the government was given their copy of the database, Theranos contactors and employees “dismantled” the servers that contained the original copy.
“It’s not like someone took a hammer to the server,” one of Holmes’ lawyers said, arguing against the notion that Holmes had a role in dismantling the server.
Holmes’ lawyers and the prosecution have long argued over who is at fault for not accessing the files once they were available. From the Wall Street Journal:
Ms. Saharia said Wednesday that the government should have tried within a day or two of receiving the database to view it, and that if they had, they might have been able to get the password before it was too late. She also suggested that they could have tried to re-create the system with Theranos’s physical servers.
Ms. Saharia said the situation called for a longer hearing so the judge could draw definitive conclusions about what happened.
Assistant U.S. Attorney John Bostic pushed back on whether the government should have tried harder to view the files, but also said the database isn’t the crucial piece of evidence Ms. Holmes’s side makes it out to be. “The idea the LIS would have enabled the parties to determine an overall failure rate is simply false,” Mr. Bostic said, adding that there was no data field showing if a test was accurate or inaccurate. “This case was charged based on other evidence.”
Her lawyers’ request is the latest in a long line of attempts to prevent jurors from seeing regulator reports on the company and hearing from patients who would present anecdotal evidence.
The judge has said he would need a longer time to consider the motion before ruling. Holmes’ trial is set to start August 31 and will address charges of defrauding her investors about the company’s technology. Holmes is also due to have a baby this month.
Mon, 07/12/2021 – 18:20