On the seventh day of the deliberations, Monday, the jurors of the trial of the founder of the company Theranos disagreed on three counts. The judge has summoned them to continue to discuss.
Le Monde with AFP
This trial is that of what could be the greatest scam of Silicon Valley. And after seven days of deliberations, his verdict remains unresolved. The twelve jumps – eight men and four women – from the Federal Court of San José (California) must determine if Elizabeth Holmes, 37, is guilty of fraud or if she sincerely believed that she would revolutionize the blood diagnostics market with her society. THERANOS. It incurs dozens of years in prison.
Monday, January 3, they indicated to the judge that they could not agree unanimously for three of the eleven charges against the fallen icon of Silicon Valley, without reporting their decision on the other eight. Federal Edward Davila responded to the jurors to continue to deliberate on the counts that oppose them, claiming that there is no precipitation.
If, despite new discussions, the jurors still fail to agree, the judge has the opportunity to accept the verdicts on which a decision has been found, and to declare the cancellation of the trial for others charges. It would then be up to the prosecutors to request or not a new trial for these charges left outstanding.
More than three months of testimonials
The jurors began to deliberate at the end of the day on December 17, after hearing testimonies for more than three months at the trial in San José, in the heart of Silicon Valley.
M me Holmes had founded Theranos in 2003, at the age of 19. It promised to produce faster and cheaper diagnostic tools than those of traditional laboratories. Became a billionaire at 30, it symbolized in many respects the entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley, between the 19-year abandonment of his studies in the prestigious Stanford University and his taste for black-collar sweaters, the emblematic clothing of the Mythical co-founder of Apple Steve Jobs.
But his devices, who had to be revolutionary, did not work. The Prosecutor had accused him of choosing “fraud rather than bankruptcy”. The lawyer of M me Holmes, on the contrary, assured that she believed in good faith in her invention. The case raises the question of how much start-ups can embellish their activities the time they arrive at maturity.