Elizabeth Holmes' Lawyers Object to Government's Decision to Amend Charge by Information, Rather Than Indictment
Lawyers for the Theranos founder claim that she has not waived the right to be charged by indictment and that the superseding information adding additional time and details to the alleged conspiracy in the case should be dismissed. Grand jury proceedings have been suspended in the Northern District of California since mid-March amid the pandemic.
May 18, 2020 at 03:11 PM
3 minute read
Lawyers for Elizabeth Holmes, the founder of defunct blood-testing company Theranos, have asked a federal judge to knock out the latest amended charges federal prosecutors filed against her.
Holmes' lawyers at Williams & Connolly and San Francisco criminal defense lawyer John Cline on Monday filed a motion to dismiss the superseding information in the case. Prosecutors on May 8 filed the information, a charging document that does not require a grand jury sign-off. The amended charges doubled the length of time that Holmes is alleged to have conspired to defraud investors, added additional categories of alleged victims, and added a new count of wire fraud.
Holmes' lawyers contend she has not waived the right to be charged by indictment and that the prosecutors' actions violate her rights under the U.S. Constitution and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 7, which requires crimes carrying more than one year or more in prison time to be charged by indictment except in cases where the defendant waives that right.
"Because Ms. Holmes does not waive prosecution by indictment, convening an arraignment on this information would be pointless and a waste of the Court's time because no arraignment could actually occur," the defense lawyers wrote. "The Court should dismiss this unconstitutional information without scheduling an arraignment."
The motion illustrates logistical challenges facing federal prosecutors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Grand jury proceedings have been suspended in the Northern District of California since mid-March.
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Northern District of California, which is prosecuting the case, said, "We have no comment at this time and will respond to the filings in due course."
U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, who is overseeing the case, said during a telephonic hearing last month he would like to push back the criminal fraud trial against Holmes from its scheduled August start date until at least October amid public health concerns.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInsurers Dodge Sherwin-Williams' Claim for $102M Lead Paint Abatement Payment, State High Court Rules
Big Tech and Internet Companies Slammed With Consumer Class Actions in December
What Does Ohio Supreme Court's Opioid Decision Mean for Public Nuisance Claims?
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250