Because the Managing Accomplice at Rise Law Firm in Beverly Hills, Eliot J. Rushovich solely represents workers in opposition to their employers. He notes that if the choose permits proof of Elizabeth Holmes’ luxurious life-style with “personal jets, five-star inns, [and] designer garments” to be heard, it might profit the prosecutors “who declare her excessive compensation and enterprise perks mirror proof of motive to defraud.” Her protection, then again, “will argue that she was satisfied her product was going to work and was merely utilizing puffery in her communications to traders” to enchantment to pathos.
Prosecutors are eager on presenting Holmes’ lavish spending as a result of they need the jury to consider “that her objective wasn’t actually her firm or its revolutionary expertise — it was about getting others to pay for inns, assistants, procuring journeys and different extravagances.” This technique is definitely two-fold, as prosecutors additionally need to anger the jury as a result of “offended jurors usually tend to convict, whether or not Holmes dedicated fraud or not,” which is strictly why the protection is making an attempt to dam it.
Rushovich, nevertheless, doesn’t see the relevance in Holmes’ life-style and doubts the choose will rule within the prosecution’s favor. “This is not a civil trial for breach of fiduciary duties,” he mentioned, “it is a legal trial for interstate wire fraud.” He notes that though the details about her life-style and spending is true, “it would not actually go to the information of the case — which is fraud. So it might be extra hurtful than useful.”