Some will remember the great losses suffered when a miracle machine from Silicon Valley turned out to be Technology too Good to be True (September 2021). If you don't remember the story, a host of fairly smart people were convinced that a little machine the size of a laser printer would revolutionize the medical testing market. That is not to doubt those investors. A great many miracle products exist in our world that were unimaginable and unbelievable at some stage. But, big and small, they were taken in by an intelligent and articulate wunderkind.
Or, were they taken in by the wunderkind's paramour? The wunderkind has persistently asserted that she was duped like everyone else by her then-lover. Is Elizabeth Holmes a perpetrator or victim? National Public Radio (NPR) concluded Holmes is "a skilled and charismatic pitchwoman, (that) raised nearly $1 billion from investors based on a mountain of lies and coverups." Let's put NPR in the "not a fan" category.
A jury convicted Ms. Holmes. From its perspective, she was to some degree, to some extent, a perpetrator. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reports that it is now up to a "judge in California" whether to put Ms. Holmes in jail while "she appeals her conviction." That is an intriguing statement, and perhaps a criticism of the justice system.
The conviction was on January 3, 2022. That is 458 days ago, which is about 15 months. The Ninth Circuit Court website says that criminal appeals there are generally decided "approximately 3-4 months after briefing is complete." Granted, it was a four-month trial. Granted, writing a brief is significant work. But, regardless of the length of the trial, the appeal will address specific issues. In all, the principal brief "may not exceed 14,000 words or, if handwritten or typewritten, 50 pages." This blog post is about 1,000 words (I know you cannot tell, but it took about an hour to write). Some may feel that the principal brief, answer brief, and the rest of this process should have concluded by the 15-month mark?
Back to the primary question, should Ms. Holmes be incarcerated while the appeal is pursued. In that question, there is room to wonder if this refers to the present appeal (the Ninth Circuit), or would include the time for potential further appellate review thereafter (Supreme Court). There is no guarantee that such a review would occur, would she remain at large as it is requested and considered? As it is, she has been free since her conviction, 458 days. In the determination of whether she remains free or must report to detention, there may be various foci and issues. But the BBC is concerned with the potential that jail will separate Ms. Holmes from her young children. It characterizes this potential as "a blind spot in the prison system."
The analysis proceeds to highlight the experiences of various mothers and children impacted by difficult circumstances. Those circumstances are each the result of the mothers being convicted of engaging in criminal activity. It recites innocent childlike questions reflecting a lack of comprehension regarding why one's mother is unable to be a more regular and local presence in a child's life. The recounting of a two-hour bus ride to prison for a maternal visit is a vivid example of the challenges resulting from incarceration. The children do not understand. It is undoubtedly difficult to explain that mom is absent because she committed a crime.
The BBC makes several points that are of interest. It laments that expectant mothers are imprisoned, that their own life choices have interfered with their personal freedom and their familial interaction opportunities. The unpleasantries of being a convict are illustrated in descriptions of unwelcoming living arrangements, cellmates, and more. The article goes to great lengths to engender sympathy for these inmates. One has to empathize and perhaps even sympathize. That has to be a difficult environment and situation.
One cited example highlights those who give birth in an incarceration facility. One was allowed only 15 minutes to hold her infant daughter before they were separated. This mother was not visited by the child thereafter. She was fortunate that an aunt undertook care and raising of the child. But, the aunt was not able to facilitate visitation. Only when the mother's term was served were this mother and daughter reunited. That engenders some sympathy.
There are multiple potentials in this coverage for one to feel sympathy for the mothers and their children. Those children absolutely committed no crime. No child gets to choose their parents. In the movie Parenthood (Universal 1989), they rather colorfully noted that anyone can be a parent. No license is required, but the movie noted "you need a license to fish." It is an interesting world we live in. I have pondered whether the protagonist there was against fishing licenses, proposing parenting licenses, or both.
Returning to the instance of Ms. Holmes, the BBC notes that whether she is jailed or not will be within "the discretion of Judge Edward Davila." Decisions are expected "sometime in the first week of April." Some doubt the chances that she will be afforded this relief, noting that delay "would mark a significant break from the norm, one that may be linked to Holmes' relative celebrity and privilege." Perhaps, more accurately, that should read "further relief?" One might wonder if "the norm" is for someone convicted of felony fraud (according to the Los Angeles Daily News) to be afforded 479 days to report to prison (the Justice Department notes that upon conviction she was ordered to surrender to prison April 27, 2023).
Is there equality in the American justice system? The stories recounted by the BBC each involve a mother that was convicted of crime. They were each sentenced to a prison term. That service interfered with the life of a child or children. That is troubling for the children, and it is hard to hear of their turmoil or torment resulting from the parent's absence. But, each of those mothers was convicted of a crime. Is there a "blind spot" in the criminal justice system or merely a "blind spot" suffered by the mothers that choose to commit crimes?
Considered differently, is there a disparity in the justice system regarding the treatment of those who are privileged? Is there a "blind spot" that allows some convicted felons to remain free for 479 days, ordering their affairs and tending to their families, while others are incarcerated immediately? Is there a "blind spot" in privilege that allows some to remain free pending appeal while others are incarcerated?
The BBC reports that there are those who believe that (further) delay in serving the sentence is a long shot for Ms. Holmes. A professor is quoted that such a ruling "would be stunning." That teacher says that any accommodation for the billion-dollar pitchwoman, in light of the many other mothers serving their time, would be "an indictment of the system," and an illustration of "how racialized our system is." That is an interesting perspective and may focus debate on the accessibility and equality of the criminal justice system.
However, this glosses over much that will likely be in the mix. There are other comparisons that are perhaps necessary. Is there a distinction based on whether the crime was violent? Is there a distinction in the magnitude; is theft of a watch the same as the $1 billion discussed regarding Ms. Holmes? Is the delay a product of the federal court system compared to how state courts might more immediately incarcerate following conviction?
In all, the situation with Theranos has raised questions and conversation. In 2022, following the verdict, the BBC questioned "has the Theranos scandal changed Silicon Valley?" Have we learned lessons about technology, start-ups, and innovation? In the broader context, what can we learn about our justice processes, perceptions of disparity or privilege, and the challenges of taking responsibility for actions?
