Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes wants to force a key prosecution witness — who testified against her last year, then showed up at her home after her fraud conviction this year — to discuss his mental health as part of her bid for a new trial.
Holmes, 38, has argued in U.S. District Court in San Jose that the August visit to her residence by former Theranos lab director Dr. Adam Rosendorff provided new evidence that compels Judge Edward Davila to throw out the jury’s January verdict. The jury found Holmes guilty on four felony counts of defrauding investors in her now-defunct Palo Alto blood-testing startup.
The clock is ticking for Holmes, who is due to be sentenced Nov. 18. Legal experts believe she will receive a multi-year prison sentence for her crimes, which cost investors more than $144 million.
Holmes’ legal team has cast Rosendorff as regretful over his trial testimony against her; they’ve also suggested in court that federal prosecutors may have committed misconduct in their interactions with Rosendorff. But the doctor testified in a special hearing last week that he stood by his statements on the witness stand at her trial, where he said he felt “obligated from a moral and ethical perspective to alert the public” about Theranos’ inaccurate test results.
Holmes lawyer Lance Wade in last week’s hearing raised concerns about the Rosendorff’s mental health, based largely on an interview the doctor gave to an obscure Jewish publication.
Holmes’ legal team has introduced in court an article published in September by the South African Jewish Report: In it, the South African-born doctor says stress he experienced from blowing the whistle on Theranos led to a “breakdown, medication, hospitalization, and health problems.”
Rosendorff is directly quoted as saying: “I was only really able to come off medication when trials were scheduled in early 2020,” in apparent reference to the federal criminal trials of Holmes and her co-accused, former Theranos chief operating officer Sunny Balwani, who was tried and convicted separately of fraud. Rosendorff also testified at Balwani’s trial.
Holmes’ lawyers noted in a filing that Rosendorff’s profile on business networking website LinkedIn includes a link to the Jewish Report article.
Rosendorff, during last week’s hearing, said his “mental state was solid” the day he visited Holmes’ residence, but he declined to answer questions from Holmes lawyer Lance Wade about references in the article to his purported breakdown, medication and hospitalization, saying “I’m finding this line of questioning to be invasive.”
Federal prosecutor John Bostic objected to the questions, and Davila upheld the objection. After Wade raised the issue again, Rosendorff said “I don’t believe any health issues influenced the truth of my interactions with the government.”
In a court filing Monday, Holmes’ attorneys said they would file a motion to force Rosendorff to answer — in a non-public hearing — the questions he did not address in the hearing.
“There can be little doubt that, depending on the nature of the mental health issue, it could be relevant to the credibility of his testimony at trial, at the evidentiary hearing, and/or his conduct at Theranos,” the filing said.
Prosecutors in a filing Monday attacked Holmes’ claim that Rosendorff’s mental state may have tainted his testimony. They argued that the court record “contains no indication whatsoever that Dr. Rosendorff suffered from a mental health issue that affected his ability to serve as a reliable witness,” and that “newly raised and uncorroborated insinuations about Dr. Rosendorff’s mental health do not justify discounting his testimony or granting a new trial.”
Legal experts said Holmes’ attempt to use Rosendorff’s mental health in her bid for a new trial is unlikely to succeed. New York defense lawyer Jennifer Kennedy Park, who has followed the Holmes case closely, noted that Davila allowed Bostic’s objection to questions about mental-health references in the Jewish Report article. “I think the judge already made the decision that this is not relevant,” Park said.
Former Santa Clara County prosecutor Steven Clark said witnesses in high-profile cases such as Holmes’ can experience significant pressure. “I can see how that wear and tear on (Rosendorff) was difficult, but that doesn’t mean he suffered from … delusions or something so that he doesn’t have the capacity to be a witness,” Clark said. “The government keeps pointing out that Dr. Rosendorff’s testimony was consistent through both trials and corroborated by other evidence.”
Also, Clark said, mental health issues are very common, and allowing Holmes’ lawyers to go after Rosendorff over his mental state could have negative effects on the justice system. “It really could dissuade people from coming to court as witnesses,” Clark said.
Clark said he believes Holmes’ overall attempt to get a new trial based on questions about Rosendorff’s testimony, his visit to her home, the government’s interaction with him, and purported mental health troubles will fail. Her legal team has not been able to make a persuasive argument that his testimony was unreliable, Clark said.
