Bad Blood: A Glimpse at Jury Deliberations

 

Business Insider. Artist: Vicki Behringer

    After 17 weeks of trial and a weeks-worth deliberations, Elizabeth Holmes, the former CEO of now-defunct blood testing company Theranos, was found guilty on four charges. Deliberations took place over seven days, that spanned two weeks at the end of December into January 2022. The jury found Holmes guilty on three counts of fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit fraud related to defrauding investors; not guilty on four charges related to defrauding patients; and were unable to reach a verdict on the three remaining charges related to defrauding three other investors.

 Inside Jury Deliberations

    Following the verdict, jurors discussed their experience throughout the trial, shedding some light on what a lengthy deliberation looked like for the dense and complex case. Deliberations occurred in an adjoining courtroom where the jurors had more space – with one juror consistently arriving early to take the judge’s seat throughout deliberations. The jurors unanimously voted for a foreman and took an anonymous vote on all eleven charges before beginning deliberations. From juror’s descriptions, it appears the jury followed an “evidence-driven deliberation,” moving through the evidence and discussing the evidence and arguments presented to reach a consensus. (American Juries, Vidmar & Hans, 2007 (143)).

    Notably, Juror 11 recalled the sheer amount of evidence and witness testimony the jury had to discuss. He recalled the jurors covered the court room walls with oversized sticky notes to map out their discussions. In discussing the 32 total witnesses presented, the jury came up with a star system from 1 to 4 to rank the credibility of each witness, with 1 star being the lowest and 4 stars being the most credible. Former Defense Secretary General Jim Mattis received a 4, while Elizabeth Holmes herself received the lowest score of 2. Juror 11 noted that this low score was heavily influenced by the fact that Holmes had a high likelihood of spinning her testimony to make herself appear in the best light, as she had the most at stake in the outcome.

    Juror 11 stated that jurors each raised points and counterpoints, with Juror 11 frequently offering points made by the defense. Juror 6 reported that a unanimous verdict on the first eight counts within three days but remained divided on the remaining three charges. Two jurors reported that a majority of the jurors were on the side of guilty for the three charges that eventually would result in no verdict.

 The Jury’s Narrative

    Both Juror 6 and Juror 8 are quoted as pointing to the jury’s belief that Holmes had originally started out with genuine intentions of making a difference and truly believed in her company’s mission. Jurors receive, filter, and understand trial presentation through their own schemas or scripts based on their personal and lived experiences, understanding of social norms, and biases. (Vidmar & Hans, 133). This understanding of Holmes’ genuineness may have influenced the jury’s deliberations and ultimate not guilty verdict on a portion of the charges.

    Several jurors noted that Holmes testimony alleging abuse at the hands of former boyfriend and Theranos CFO was generally believable, but was out of place in trial, with one noting “[t]here was a certain amount of cynicism that it was a sympathy ploy.” Here, the jurors still fit the evidence into a narrative but rejected the weight of this portion of the narrative in light of other evidence specific to the fraud charges (such as a doctored document and false financial statements). Ultimately, the jurors seemed to focus on each charge as a separate narrative, as evidence by the divided verdict.