United States of America v. Elizabeth A. Holmes, et al.

San Francisco, California criminal defense lawyers represented the Defendants charged with fraud.



"[O]ne tiny drop changes everything.” That was the vision shared by Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh "Sunny”

Balwani, who set out in the mid-2000s to revolutionize medical laboratory testing through a biotechnology

company called Theranos. In the early 2010s, Theranos claimed that it could run fast, accurate, and affordable tests

with just a drop of blood drawn from the prick of a finger, in contrast to traditional testing methods that require large

needles to draw blood from a vein.



Investors, health care professionals and companies, and Silicon Valley spectators were captivated by the potential of

Theranos's revolutionary technology. As a result, Holmes and Balwani were able to establish relationships with major

companies, investors, and prominent figures, including high-

ranking members of the United States military.



But the vision sold by Holmes and Balwani was nothing more than a mirage. In late 2015, news reporting revealed

internal struggles within the Theranos laboratory and the limitations of its technology. The grandiose achievements

touted by Holmes and Balwani were half-truths and outright lies. Theranos's blood-testing device failed to deliver faster

and more accurate testing results than conventional technology. Pharmaceutical companies never validated the technology, as Holmes and Balwani had told investors.



Contrary to the rosy revenue projections shared with investors and business partners, Theranos was running out

of money.



After a two-and-a-half-year investigation, a grand jury returned an indictment against Holmes and Balwani. They

were tried separately in lengthy jury trials, and each was convicted on numerous fraud charges.

MoreLaw

was created to help people find the right lawyers to represent them based on the performance history of trial lawyers in every county of the United States. Click the link above to see a list of the lawyers that MoreLaw has identified who practice law where this case was litigated.

Kent Morlan, Esq.

Affirmed on appeal.