First, in United States v. Holmes, --- F.4th ---. No. 22-10312 (9th Cir. 2025), the Court affirmed Elizabeth Holmes’s and Ranesh “Sunny” Balwani’s convictions on numerous fraud charges, their sentences, and the district court’s $452 million restitution order.
This case arises from the Theranos scandal.
“[O]ne tiny drop changes everything.” That was the vision shared by Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, who set out in the mid-2000s to revolutionize medical laboratory testing through a biotechnology company called Theranos. In the early 2010s, Theranos claimed that it could run fast, accurate, and affordable tests with just a drop of blood drawn from the prick of a finger, in contrast to traditional testing methods that require large needles to draw blood from a vein.Investors, health care professionals and companies, and Silicon Valley spectators were captivated by the potential of Theranos’s revolutionary technology. As a result, Holmes and Balwani were able to establish relationships with major companies, investors, and prominent figures, including high-ranking members of the United States military.But the vision sold by Holmes and Balwani was nothing more than a mirage. In late 2015, news reporting revealed internal struggles within the Theranos laboratory and the limitations of its technology. The grandiose achievements touted by Holmes and Balwani were half-truths and outright lies. Theranos’s blood-testing device failed to deliver faster and more accurate testing results than conventional technology. Pharmaceutical companies never validated the technology, as Holmes and Balwani had told investors. Contrary to the rosy revenue projections shared with investors and business partners, Theranos was running out of money.After a two-and-a-half-year investigation, a grand jury returned an indictment against Holmes and Balwani. They were tried separately in lengthy jury trials, and each was convicted on numerous fraud charges. Holmes and Balwani now bring several challenges to the district court’s decisions at trial and sentencing. We affirm.
The defendants argued that the district court erred by allowing former Theranos employees, who testified as lay witnesses, to offer improper expert testimony. The Court explained that if a witness offers an opinion that is based on specialized knowledge, experience, training, or education contemplated by Fed. Rule of Evidence 702, a party cannot evade the Rule by labeling a witness “percipient.” And there is no “on-the-job” exception to Rule 702. Considering each of the challenged witnesses with these principles in mind, the Court held that some aspects of the testimonies veered into expert territory, but any error was harmless.
The Court also rejected Holmes' challenge to the introduction of a report prepared by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which revealed significant flaws with Theranos' testing. The Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the report was relevant to Holmes’s knowledge, intent, or state of mind, and in finding that the probative value of the report was not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice.
Additionally, the Court rejected a host of other evidentiary challenges.
As to restitution, the Court held that the district court erred by failing to consider possible credits against Defendants’ restitution obligation by accounting for the residual value of their shares after the fraud came to light. But this error too was harmless because the evidence showed the victims’ actual losses were equal to the total amount of their investments.
Next in United States v. Powers, --- F.4th ---, No. 23-2218 (9th Cir. 2025), the Court affirmed Philip A. Powers III’s convictions, following a bench trial before a magistrate judge, on seven misdemeanor counts arising from his setting three fires in national forests (the “Taylor Fire,” the “Sycamore Fire,” and the “Sycamore 2 Fire”).
This case is all about the necessity defense. Powers set the fires after becoming lost and running out of water.
After losing the trail while hiking in northern Arizona, Defendant-Appellant Philip A. Powers III deliberately set three fires in the Prescott and Coconino National Forests. The United States Forest Service (USFS) later named these fires the “Taylor Fire,” the “Sycamore Fire,” and the “Sycamore 2 Fire.” The Sycamore Fire spread uncontrolled over 230 acres of forest, burning timber, shrubs, and grasses, and threatening Flagstaff, Arizona and the nearby watershed. Firefighters contained the fire after approximately nine days, and the USFS incurred $293,413.71 in recoverable fire suppression costs.The government charged Powers with seven misdemeanor counts arising from these fires: one count of leaving a fire unattended in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1856 (Count 1) and six counts of violating USFS regulations (Counts 2 through 7). At a bench trial before a magistrate judge, Powers admitted setting the fires but asserted that he had done so out of necessity. Powers acknowledged that he was aware of the dry conditions and fire restrictions in the forests when he set the fires, but argued that he should nonetheless be acquitted because he was out of food and water, he did not have cell phone service, his physical condition was deteriorating, and his death was imminent. Therefore, he had no choice but to set the fires to “signal” for help. The magistrate judge rejected Powers’s necessity defense and found him guilty on all counts, sentenced him to supervised probation, and ordered him to pay restitution to the USFS.In this appeal, Powers challenges his convictions and the order of restitution. He argues that the magistrate judge erred in refusing to apply the necessity defense to acquit him of the charges. . . . Because Powers’s actions in setting the fires were objectively unreasonable, and because he was not facing imminent harm when he set the Taylor Fire, he failed to meet the requirements of the necessity defense. Accordingly, we affirm.
Of note is the Court's lengthy discussion of the necessity defense:
“The necessity defense is an affirmative defense that removes criminal liability for violation of a criminal statute.” Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). It “traditionally covered the situation where physical forces beyond the actor’s control rendered illegal conduct the lesser of two evils.” United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 410 (1980). For example, “[a]n escapee who flees from a jail that is in the process of burning to the ground” may be entitled to the defense, id. at 415, “for he is not to be hanged because he would not stay to be burnt,” United States v. Kirby, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 482, 487 (1868); see also United States v. Schoon, 971 F.2d 193, 196 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427, 432 (9th Cir. 1985)) (explaining that the necessity defense “justifies criminal acts taken to avert a greater harm, maximizing social welfare by allowing a crime to be committed where the social benefits of the crime outweigh the social costs of failing to commit the crime”), as amended (Aug. 4, 1992).“Because the necessity doctrine is utilitarian, however, strict requirements contain its exercise so as to prevent non-beneficial criminal conduct.” Schoon, 971 F.2d at 197. To prove necessity, a defendant must show “(1) that he was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser evil; (2) that he acted to prevent imminent harm; (3) that he reasonably anticipated a causal relation between his conduct and the harm to be avoided; and (4) that there were no other legal alternatives to violating the law.” United States v. PerdomoEspana, 522 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Arellano-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1119, 1125–26 (9th Cir. 2001)). All four elements must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and each is viewed through an objective framework. Id. at 987–88; see United States v. Cruz, 554 F.3d 840, 850 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that a “‘defendant must prove the elements of [an] affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence,’ unless some other standard is set by statute” (quoting United States v. Beasley, 346 F.3d 930, 935 (9th Cir. 2003))).Moreover, to benefit from the necessity defense, a person “must act reasonably.”6 Perdomo-Espana, 522 F.3d at 987– 88 (applying the necessity defense and explaining that “[e]mbedded in our recognition that a person who seeks to benefit from a justification defense must act reasonably is the principle that justification defenses necessarily must be analyzed objectively”); see also Bailey, 444 U.S. at 410–11 (noting that “in the context of prison escape, the escapee is not entitled to claim a defense of . . . necessity unless and until he demonstrates that, given the imminence of the threat, violation of [the law] was his only reasonable alternative”); United States v. Simpson, 460 F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir. 1972) (explaining that the societal benefit underlying justification defenses “is lost . . . when the person seeking to avert the anticipated harm does not act reasonably”).Applying this reasonableness requirement to the third and fourth elements of the necessity defense, we have stated that “the law implies a reasonableness requirement in judging whether legal alternatives exist,” Perdomo-Espana, 522 F.3d at 987 (quoting Schoon, 971 F.2d at 198), and “the defendant must ‘reasonably anticipate a causal relation between his conduct and the harm to be avoided,’” id. (alteration omitted) (quoting Arellano-Rivera, 244 F.3d at 1126). We now clarify that the reasonableness requirement also applies to the second element: The action a defendant takes to prevent imminent harm must be reasonable. See Perdomo-Espana, 522 F.3d at 987–88; Schoon, 971 F.2d at 197–98.
