Prosecutors Defend Decision to Add Charges in Case Against Elizabeth Holmes by Information, Rather Than Indictment
Lawyers for Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes had argued in a motion filed earlier this month that a superseding information prosecutors filed without grand jury sign-off should be dismissed, because she has not waived the right to be charged by indictment.
May 26, 2020 at 07:25 PM
3 minute read
Elizabeth Holmes and attorneys from Williams & Connley head into the Northern District. Photo: Jason Doiy/ALM
Federal prosecutors handling the criminal fraud case against former executives of the defunct blood-testing company Theranos are defending their decision to file a superseding information to expand charges in the case even though the defendants have not waived their right to be charged by indictment.
Lawyers with the U.S. attorney's office for the Northern District of California explained in a filing Tuesday that the move, which allowed them to amend the charges against Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes and the company's former COO and president Ramesh Balwani without going before a grand jury, was necessary to allow for further proceedings on the expanded charges and to satisfy the statute of limitations. Grand jury proceedings have been suspended in the Northern District since March 16 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and will remain so until at least June 1.
Holmes' lawyers at Williams & Connolly had argued in a May 18 filing that the prosecutors' actions violated their client's 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, calling the move "patently unconstitutional." Balwani's lawyers at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe later filed a joinder to Holmes's motion.
In Tuesday's filing, prosecutors contend that just because Holmes hasn't waived her right to be prosecuted by indictment, that doesn't make filing an information as a placeholder unconstitutional, especially given current circumstances. Prosecutors are asking U.S. District Judge Edward Davila of the Northern District of California, who is overseeing the case, to either deny the defense request to dismiss the information without prejudice or to hold off ruling until "a reasonable time after the Court lifts the suspension of grand jury proceedings."
"Defendants' claim that an information must be 'dismissed immediately' because it is not the constitutionally required indictment proves too much," they wrote. "Criminal charges are initiated all the time through preliminary proceedings like a complaint or an information."
Williams & Connolly's Lance Wade didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment Tuesday.
Read more:
Elizabeth Holmes' Lawyer Assails Theranos Prosecution as 'Massive Case With Undefined Contours'
Elizabeth Holmes Trial Likely Postponed Until October Due to COVID-19
Lawyers for Elizabeth Holmes Urge Pushback of August Trial Date, Prosecutors Endorse October Start
Despite COVID-19, Judge in Elizabeth Holmes Fraud Case Pushes Forward With Summer Trial Date
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
© 2025 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 All
Wilson Sonsini Knocks Out Claims Against Inhibrx Biosciences in Trade Secrets Verdict
'Blatant and Audacious': Sideman & Bancroft Wins Injunction for Biotech Startup Trilobio in Trade Secrets Theft Case
Los Angeles Secures $35M Settlement From Monsanto in Water Contamination Lawsuit
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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
