After the founding father of Theranos Elizabeth Holmes loses her calling against her conviction for fraud of crimes this week, a former public prosecutor of the US Ministry of Justice has a key role in the combination of the technology entrepreneur in prison for the Silicon Valley entrepreneur: Don't be like Holmes.
“The snack bars are quite obvious,” said John Botic, now the lawyer of a distinguished law firm in Bay Area, who at the tip of Holmes' process as CEO “so fear of failure” she was able to do all the things. “
The 41-year-old Holmes was convicted in January 2022 in four cases of crimes for fraud of hundreds of millions of dollars by her Blood test startup from Palo's old test. The jurors heard that they incorrectly proposed that their technology was used for military helicopters, and she admitted to the witness stand that she had applied logos of pharmaceutical companies and applied to internal Theranos documents that had shared an offer of the credibility of her company in what claimed prosecutors had shared. It was convicted of more than 11 years in prison, with a current publication date in March 2032.
The 42-year-old BOSTIC, now a partner in the Palo Alto headquarters of the Global law firm Cooley, is working on the defense and investigation on the employee. He met on Tuesday with this news organization to discuss Holmes' failed appeal and the criminal proceedings and the four -month legal proceedings. His comments were processed for length and clarity.
Q: Why did Holmes fail 'appeal procedure?
A: In the course of such a court proceedings, so many disputes between the parties appear on legal interpretation issues or factual accuracy or the admissibility of evidence. The Court, of course, makes decisions everywhere, acts as a referee and calls balls and strikes. This means that there will always be something about which you can argue from an appellate court. We in the government team and everyone else in this room have worked hard to make it a fair process.
Q: In which teachings would you say that Holmes' case applies to entrepreneurs from Silicon Valley and the Tech industry?
A: There can be a temptation to fake it until you have made it – this is a saying that was associated with this case. And especially in the vicinity of startups in Silicon Valley, which is so competitive, where so many startups fail, there is an incentive for founders to accelerate things with the way in which they may be inaccurate or excessively optimistic. The case of Theranos is obviously a memory that there is a line that cannot be crossed there and that it is really important to be careful and careful and honest in communication about new technologies, (and) of the company's services.
Q: Has the fact that she has not motivated herself to make the public prosecutor more difficult?
A: From the perspective of the government and from the perspective of the law, the reason of a defendant takes into account the fraud fraud, not in the analysis, be it for himself or in favor of himself or in favor of someone else or, in this case, to help a company increase a company or increase a company's chance of success.
Q: What was Holmes' most convincing evidence of your defense?
A: I thought the defense did a great job to show their commitment to the company and how hard they and others worked towards the success of the company. However, I think that this did not affect the result, since the claim was not that this was a sham company, but only that lies were told in connection with the company and what it could do.
Q: What do you see as the strongest evidence against Holmes?
A: In a fraud, the critical proof of what the defendant intended is. It can be difficult to prove what was in the head of a person. There were indications that Holmes knew that some things she said about were not true, and there were also some indications of a change in documents that I had very easy to understand for the jury.
Q: When did you hear from Elizabeth Holmes for the first time?
A: When the Wall Street Journal article emerged in October 2015. This was the first negative reporting on Holmes and Theranos. The week when I joined the (Ministry of Justice) was the week when the article came out.
Q: Did you expect the case to land in your desk?
A: At that point I had no reason to assume that I’d ultimately work on this examination that might turn right into a law enforcement. But I used to be definitely interested by once I first examine it at a private level, after which in fact also through the lens of a public prosecutor since it identified possible fraud.
Q: How did you get the case?
A: For a number of reasons, I fit well with this case, including that I actually have a scientific background. I used to be a significant of molecular biology. As you saw within the study, on this case there have been some really technical problems that involve these (blood tests) and their validity and their statistical performance, the variety of tests that would perform various devices. It gave me a little bit of ahead and I believe it made it easier for me to send the jury a few of these concepts.
Q: Was there a turning point within the attempt that made Holmes on a trajectory for a wrongdoer judgment?
A: I actually have never seen this process as a single star wire or a single crucial moment or proof that all the things else is switched on. The government investigated tens of million pages with documentary evidence. Dozens of individuals, perhaps a whole lot, were interviewed in reference to the investigation. The process … took several months. I believe it was the load of the general evidence that did the work and never a selected piece.
Q: Were you surprised that she took a position?
A: I used to be not surprised. Because fraud cases are so dependent that the jury understood what was within the defendant's head after they did, there is usually no substitute for a accused who puts the viewpoint and offers its side of history. It's a high moment. It is a time when the jury and the judge are particularly vigilant to search out out what it happens from what happens on the witness stand.
image credit : www.mercurynews.com