The accusation from Holmes, who was one of the few expected witnesses called by her defense team to testify, was easily the most emotional moment of the five days she stood in the stands for now. Her claims, which Balwani’s lawyers have previously denied, could also complicate the government’s case against her. in the eyes of the judges.
The government accuses Holmes of intentionally misleading investors, doctors and patients about the capabilities of her company’s blood-testing technology through an allegedly fraudulent website in pursuit of money. Holmes faces nine counts of telephone fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit telephone fraud, and could carry up to 20 years in prison if convicted. She pleaded not guilty.
Her claim of abuse is likely to raise new questions for jurors about intent to deceive – a key factor a jury of eight men and four women will consider when determining fate. hers. Indeed, shortly before the jury selection was conducted, the court sealed the document detailing that Holmes ‘could claim she was abused by Balwani as proof’ that she had no intention of defrauding her. lie.” (Previous potential jurors were also asked if they had any experience of abuse or interpersonal violence in an effort to weed out those who might be biased.)
“It can make [jurors] Second, guess if she intentionally committed fraud,” said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School and a former federal prosecutor. could doubt her testimony. How opportunistic she is that she will say anything at the time she asks.”
“It almost blurs what’s about the trial”
Holmes first met Balwani after graduating from high school when she was 18 and he was 38. Holmes then dropped out of her sophomore year at Stanford to start a business, a decision she testified in part because she was raped while in school. . When she decided to dedicate herself to building the company, she said she sought business advice from Balwani. The relationship then turned romantic.
In trying to hold back the tears, she demonstrated Balwani’s control over her from forcing her to have sex with him to prescribing her an extremely restrictive lifestyle. He is alleged to have disciplined her eating, voice and image. He is also said to have isolated her from the others.
“Sunny would be very upset if I was with my family because he said it was a distraction from the business,” she testified Monday.
Notably, Holmes testified that Balwani did not control her interactions with investors, journalists, retail executives or board members. Instead, she testified, “he impacted everything about who I am, and I don’t quite get it.”
Balwani, who is indicted alongside Holmes and will face similar charges when his trial begins next year, also pleaded not guilty. Their trials were cut off after Holmes indicated she could testify that she was the victim of intimate partner abuse.
According to Dr. Evan Stark, a forensic social worker, the nature of the relationship Holmes has claimed is indicative of what is known as “coercive control”, which is also the title of a book by Stark. . This term refers to a pattern of abusive behavior that deprives a person of one’s freedom.
Stark consulted on the cases (though not the Holmes case) with clinical psychologist Dr Mindy Mechanic, whose defense said they could be called upon to testify in his capacity. is an expert in the Holmes test. Mechanic, whose work focuses on the psychosocial consequences of violence, trauma and victimization, assessed Holmes for 14 hours, and also conducted interviews with members of her family. , according to pre-trial records. “Expert testimony will be helpful and appropriate in educating the jury on why Ms Holmes trusts, respects and relies on Mr. Balwani,” the defense wrote in a court filing. (The government can also get an expert to assess Holmes.)
Stark said Holmes’ abusive testimony was ultimately a call for a jury. “It raised a question in the minds of the judges as to whether she was fully responsible for the activities.”
Ziv Cohen, a forensic psychiatrist and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College. can also be effective “because it obscures what’s going on in the trial.”
Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School and former federal prosecutor, echoes this view. “Both can be true – that she is in an abusive relationship as she alleges, and that she is guilty of the charges. I don’t think the government has to deny her allegations. she let it prevail at trial.”
Trying to poke holes after bombshell testimony
At the very least, the abuse charge has the potential to complicate prosecutors’ cross-examination of Holmes by exposing sensitive activities.
When asking Holmes about Third, assistant U.S. attorney Robert Leach sought to contrast Balwani’s alleged control of her life with her power at the company she founded, led and in which she has 51% shares.
“Is he a discretionary employee?” Leach asked. “He was,” Holmes testified. “Okay. Can you fire him any time?” Leach continued. “I can,” replied Holmes.
Leach sought to discredit Holmes by pointing out that her reasons for her split with Balwani differed from earlier testimony by the Securities and Exchange Commission. She told the SEC that her relationship with Balwani lost its romance at some point after they began working together. When testifying on Monday, she did not mention that her views on Balwani changed after learning of the findings of a regulatory inspection of Theranos’ lab.
Leach also tries to prove that she can end the relationship on her own without seeing any mental health professionals.
The confusion during the prosecution’s interrogation became apparent on Tuesday when Leach asked Holmes to read aloud her private messages to Balwani to demonstrate their relationship was “at times in love but sometimes not too in love.” In doing so, Holmes, for the second day in a row, became emotional in the stands.
Stark said if the intent was to use text messages to discredit the nature of the relationship, Dr Mechanic would “tear up that argument” if she was called out by the defense to testify. “There’s no contradiction between loving men who hurt you,” says Stark.
Levenson, a former federal prosecutor, said the government needed to “be careful not to cross the line to try her for abuse and keep the case focused on whether she knowingly gave make false statements or not.”
Leach also questioned Holmes about whether she was “involved in another romantic relationship between 2010 and 2015”. Holmes, who lived with Balwani from 2005 to 2016, testified “no” at first, in apparent confusion about the date. She later confirmed that she had been in another relationship in early 2010, but “it wasn’t really an official relationship.”
Leach fails to explain the relevance of the question. But according to Cohen, it may have been an attempt to point out ways in which Holmes appears to have self-determination. “If he was an abuser and a controlling person, it wouldn’t be appropriate for her to date someone else. It’s annoying but the prosecution really has to concede a goal.”
Leach’s cross-examination of Holmes will continue on Tuesday.
