Jody Godoy

(Reuters) – Elizabeth Holmes, founder of Theranos, is expected to appeal her conviction in defrauding investors. However four experts suggest that her jury verdicts on multiple counts or acquittals could be used against her.

Holmes on Monday was found guilty https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-jury-theranos-trial-cannot-agree-verdicts-all-charges-2022-01-03 of defrauding investors in the once high-flying Silicon Valley blood-testing startup, but she was acquitted of deceiving patients. The guilty verdict on four of 11 counts came after a months-long trial https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rise-fall-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes-2022-01-04.

An ex-entrepreneur from Silicon Valley was found guilty by a jury of conspiring and defrauding investors. Holmes was acquitted of defrauding patients and other charges.

Holmes’ attorneys have yet to say whether they will appeal. Holmes attorneys did not respond on Tuesday to our request for comment.

According to legal experts, Holmes was convicted on certain charges by jurors. This will diminish the argument that these jurors were biased or confused.

Carrie Cohen (a white-collar attorney who was formerly a New York City prosecutor) said that it is difficult to prove that the jury has rushed to make a verdict in a mixed verdict. They didn’t use evidence from one crime to prove that she had lied to an investor. “She must have lied about the other three investors.”

Experts believe that appeals will focus on rulings by U.S. district Judge Edward Davila for prosecutors before or during the trial. Jurors may be allowed to view a 2015 regulatory report stating that Theranos’ laboratory conditions posed an “immediate risk to patient safety and health.”

Her lawyers had challenged the use of this report by prosecutors, saying it was insignificant and could unfairly prejudice jurors. The judge ruled that Holmes could have used the evidence to prove that he was aware of Theranos’ problems.

The evidence was presented by the 29 witnesses from the government.

According to Christopher Slobogin of Vanderbilt Law School, appels courts do not disturb jury verdicts. They will instead consider whether the erroneous decision was substantial enough to affect the result.

The instructions given to the jury before the deliberations began, and the meaning of “reasonable suspicion”, are another focus. Holmes requested no further instruction on the legal standard. The high bar set for criminal convictions means that Holmes was not allowed to ask for any additional instructions.

The United States considers criminal defendants innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Cohen claimed that trying to convince the jury about the standard was an uphill task, as the jury has already acquitted some charges.

But the mixed verdict may prove helpful at Holmes’ sentencing, said Amanda Kramer, a partner at Covington & Burling.

Holmes’s attorneys are likely to argue that Holmes wasn’t a salesperson selling snake oil and was actually attempting to rip off people.

Kramer explained that “the defense will argue to judge that that’s actually meaningful, that she stands aside from the predatory fraudulentsters that were found guilty across all the boards.”