Jury in Elizabeth Holmes trial deadlocked on 3 of 11 counts
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
If they are deadlocked on 3 counts but not on the others… is it deadlock for all charges are can she be convicted of the other 8?
Upvote
127
(127
/
0)
OldLadyJosie
Ars Tribunus Militum
Yeah, but they're typically less likely to walk when they rip off OTHER wealthy people, which she did. I was hoping for a Madoff here at least.
Upvote
64
(69
/
-5)
I would be more encouraged if she were rapidly found guilty of all 11 charges, but I see no particular reason to read these tea leaves favorably or unfavorably on the other eight. Jury tea leaf reading is what cable news talking heads do to fill dead air.
Upvote
121
(122
/
-1)
Upvote
93
(93
/
0)
It's NOT all or nothing. They can vote to convict on those other 8 charges, and note that they're deadlocked on the 3 counts.
Depending on what those three counts are, the prosecution could either request a re-trial on those counts or call it good with the 8 they convicted on.
(crossing my fingers they've voted to convict and not acquit on those 8)
Upvote
103
(104
/
-1)
Choosing to be optimistic, looking at the charges, nine are actual instances wire fraud and two are conspiracy to commit. So if the prosecution failed to make its case on specific instances, it still means she's a crook. You can't get the wire fraud without conspiracy, so the conspiracy charges are good.
She's still going to prison.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/us-v- ... lmes-et-al
She's still going to prison.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/us-v- ... lmes-et-al
Upvote
36
(37
/
-1)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
It is not all or nothing but it isn't clear what the jury decided on those other eight charges. It may be they have already voted not-guilty on the other eight and it is down to these three charges or nothing.
If I was a betting man though I will say she is going to walk because she is young, white, blonde and being a sociopath very good at playing the victim. That being said I certainly hope I am wrong.
The one thing in favor of her being convicted is she stole from rich people. Had she just poisoned the water of a bunch of poors she would already celebrating her victory. If you are rich you can do pretty much anything except steal from other rich people.
Upvote
2
(25
/
-23)
The only time in my life I was on a criminal jury (I've served on civil juries before), the initial vote after 3 days of trial was 11 to 1. I was the 1.
I won't say what the particular case was but, as I went through my thoughts one by one, a few people flipped their votes almost immediately, and we were 6 to 6 after an hour or two.
By the end of the 2nd day of deliberations, it was either 9 to 3 or 10 to 2. I'm not really sure the last two or three people were ever convinced, but they at least weren't opposed enough to the verdict we agreed to to draw deliberations out for a 3rd day.
It was a very enlightening and educational experience.
Upvote
66
(75
/
-9)
OldLadyJosie
Ars Tribunus Militum
You're right, you're right. Admittedly I've just gotten really, really good at panicking over the past few years.
Upvote
32
(34
/
-2)
I'm sure that the typical outcome is better for wealthier people-- generally they will have more/better lawyers and presumably that makes some difference in outcomes (otherwise who would waste tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on a top legal team?).
Bernie Madoff, Martha Stewart, Oj Simpson, Allen Stanford, Stewart Parnell, Martin Shkreli, Phil Spector, Viktour Bout, etc, all ended up in prison despite any fame and/or fortune.
[edit] How could I forget Bill Cosby and guys like Darryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden!
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
I saw that movie too. Great piece of filmmaking; so much story with so few gimmicks.
Upvote
84
(86
/
-2)
He committed the ultimate sin of not even attempting to hide the greed and letting the world see how the rest of the industry works.
Upvote
15
(17
/
-2)
Upvote
3
(8
/
-5)
I know it's easy to be pessimistic and think that her wealth, looks, and skin color will see her through with a not guilty verdict... and that certainly is possible, but I don't think it will happen in this case.
She made other rich, powerful people look stupid. That's the sort of the thing that will get an "elite" locked up in America.
She made other rich, powerful people look stupid. That's the sort of the thing that will get an "elite" locked up in America.
Upvote
17
(20
/
-3)
He made the mistake of threatening a former first lady and then presidential candidate (and expected first woman president) while he was on probation.
Upvote
3
(6
/
-3)
Upvote
45
(46
/
-1)
How many times have you observed jury deliberation at a murder trial, and how were you certain they were a murderer if the jury couldn't come to that conclusion?
Upvote
35
(36
/
-1)
I signed up for an account just so I can post this...
Here is my guess
Of the 11 charges, 8 have to do with defrauding investors, 3 are for defrauding patients.
I believe the jury has found her guilty of every charge dealing with investors, and there are some jurors unsure of her guilt of defrauding patients. All of the smoking guns (forged pharma documents, secretly recorded phone calls) all had to do with defrauding investors. There weren't as strong a smoking gun when it comes to defrauding patients. So my guess is she will be convicted on all counts dealing with investors. There are just too many smoking guns. Jurors are you and me, they aren't stupid.
Here is my guess
Of the 11 charges, 8 have to do with defrauding investors, 3 are for defrauding patients.
I believe the jury has found her guilty of every charge dealing with investors, and there are some jurors unsure of her guilt of defrauding patients. All of the smoking guns (forged pharma documents, secretly recorded phone calls) all had to do with defrauding investors. There weren't as strong a smoking gun when it comes to defrauding patients. So my guess is she will be convicted on all counts dealing with investors. There are just too many smoking guns. Jurors are you and me, they aren't stupid.
Upvote
106
(106
/
0)
Short rebuttal; Marting Shkreli wasn't particularly wealthy and powerful.
yes, he has millions. But Holmes' company had a value up to the billions, and more importantly, she convinced a lot of famous and powerful people to put their names on it.
Upvote
-3
(8
/
-11)
I was on a jury once for a serious felony (not a federal jury).
From that experience I caution against trying to read tea leaves.
Everyone on my jury took the role seriously, and very carefully considered the requirements of each charge, the court's instructions, and the evidence presented at trial. If I were every to find myself in trouble I would hope for a jury that functioned like the one I was a part of.
The only conclusion from this development is just that this jury is probably also applying careful scrutiny and doing their jobs the best they can.
From that experience I caution against trying to read tea leaves.
Everyone on my jury took the role seriously, and very carefully considered the requirements of each charge, the court's instructions, and the evidence presented at trial. If I were every to find myself in trouble I would hope for a jury that functioned like the one I was a part of.
The only conclusion from this development is just that this jury is probably also applying careful scrutiny and doing their jobs the best they can.
Upvote
63
(63
/
0)
Her "billions" were solely on paper. She was never worth that much.
Upvote
31
(31
/
0)
The number of people who essentially say "the justice system is broken if the jurors who spent days in court listening to the trial don't see things the way I do after literal minutes of internet research" is very disturbing.
Upvote
88
(91
/
-3)
I can safely say, based on what I've heard from criminal attorneys, that the jury is the most unpredictable piece of the US criminal justice system. Which is to say I agree with you.
The only jury I've ever been a part of was for a DUI case in which we acquitted practically instantly. Pro-tip for the state attorneys: If you bring someone to trial for DUI, you might want to present evidence the person drove a car that day. Arresting a drunk person from inside their house without any evidence they drove any car is as open and shut a case I could ever think of.
Upvote
54
(55
/
-1)
For those interested, the actual indictments are below. It's hard (for me) to see which 3 of the 11 are in question. Although counts 9, 10, 11 are grouped together.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/page/ ... 6/download
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/page/ ... 6/download
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
As far as I know the jury did not indicate which of the 3 charges they are deadlocked on and if they did, I don't believe it would be (or has been) made public.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
I'd certainly like to believe that. But while I don't think jurors are stupid, I'm not sure they're like you and me, either.
I sat for jury selection three times in my life. Each time I was asked what my occupation was. Each time I answered "research scientist." Each time I was immediately dismissed.
My lawyer friends tell me that defense lawyers do not want critical thinkers on their juries.
Upvote
17
(29
/
-12)
It depends entirely on the nature of the case. I've heard one example of a defense attorney, who would usually want to dismiss law enforcement officers from the jury, purposefully leave one on the jury due to the alleged mistreatment of his client by law enforcement to the point where the alleged actions were so disturbing the LEO juror would be desperate to show that the behavior is not indicative of good policing and would therefore vote to acquit. The strategy worked.
The case I was referencing in another comment I was on I put my occupation (Electronics Engineer) and the fact that I plead no contest to a DUI some years prior and I still got on that jury. I think both sides knew the case's outcome was all but a forgone conclusion.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Ive been in 3 myself in my life and honestly I see why. A lot of scientists frankly don’t think like normal people. It’s not critical thinking that’s bad, it’s inability to set aside your own expertise and any background info and bias you may have on the case and just use the info you were presented during the trial. I’m an engineer and my wife is a physicist and I’m not sure I’d want either of us on any juries where the case hinges on those topics were I the defendant. Your job as jurors isn’t to use background info and make your own judgement based on educated guesses, it’s to use the information given to determine if the (presumed) innocent party is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Upvote
38
(41
/
-3)
True but your self-awareness of the difference would be enough for me (not a lawyer) to see why you would be valuable on a jury. Except on cases hinging on topics related to your work of course.
Upvote
-1
(2
/
-3)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
but yeah that is the point OTHER people put a lot of money into her scam and they lost it all (well essentially all). If there is one thing that consistently will put the 1% in prison it is stealing from the 1%. The implicit rule if you are only allowed to con, swindle, or outright steal from the poors but don't mess with the rich and their money.
Upvote
-3
(7
/
-10)
Jury deliberations are hard, even for simple matters. Jury I was on, we all _wanted_ to nail the scumbag to the wall and we trapped ourselves into trying to disprove the defense. We came back after lunch, realized we were doing it backwards and that the prosecution really hadn't made their case. If the prosecution had asked certain questions, we might have gotten somewhere, but as it was there wasn't enough to convict.
Bonus points that the prosecutor's last name was Winchester and it was a gun possession while on probation case.
Bonus points that the prosecutor's last name was Winchester and it was a gun possession while on probation case.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)